<?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 (9) TMI 372 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758128</link>
    <description>HC dismissed the writ petition challenging transfer of case from Coimbatore to Central Circle, Kolkata under Section 127. Court held that respondents had sufficient material for transfer as Kolkata Circle conducted search and seizure operations on petitioner&#039;s business premises, seizing incriminating materials related to lottery business within their jurisdiction. Despite petitioner&#039;s objections citing age, litigation costs, and registered office location in Coimbatore, Court found transfer appropriate since assessment should occur where incriminating evidence was seized, regardless of registered office location. Respondents provided adequate opportunity for reply and personal hearing before issuing transfer notification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2026 15:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=767039" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 372 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758128</link>
      <description>HC dismissed the writ petition challenging transfer of case from Coimbatore to Central Circle, Kolkata under Section 127. Court held that respondents had sufficient material for transfer as Kolkata Circle conducted search and seizure operations on petitioner&#039;s business premises, seizing incriminating materials related to lottery business within their jurisdiction. Despite petitioner&#039;s objections citing age, litigation costs, and registered office location in Coimbatore, Court found transfer appropriate since assessment should occur where incriminating evidence was seized, regardless of registered office location. Respondents provided adequate opportunity for reply and personal hearing before issuing transfer notification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758128</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>