<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2024 (1) TMI 168 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447769</link>
    <description>The HC directed the fourth respondent to resolve the statutory appeal within three months, emphasizing the need for timely adjudication. It restrained the first and second respondents from initiating coercive recovery actions for the disputed tax demand of Rs. 19,41,080/- until the appeal&#039;s resolution, highlighting the significance of fair asset valuation under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act. The related application was closed without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Oct 2024 16:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=738969" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (1) TMI 168 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447769</link>
      <description>The HC directed the fourth respondent to resolve the statutory appeal within three months, emphasizing the need for timely adjudication. It restrained the first and second respondents from initiating coercive recovery actions for the disputed tax demand of Rs. 19,41,080/- until the appeal&#039;s resolution, highlighting the significance of fair asset valuation under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act. The related application was closed without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447769</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>