<?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>2000 (11) TMI 133 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40289</link>
    <description>The High Court&#039;s impugned judgment was set aside because it rested on a factual basis not found in the Tribunal&#039;s order, even though the Tribunal was the final fact-finding authority. The Revenue did not dispute that discrepancy, and the point had not been argued before the High Court in the relevant form. The matter was restored to the High Court for fresh disposal, and the reference was to be heard and decided again on the proper factual basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2018 11:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=78831" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (11) TMI 133 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40289</link>
      <description>The High Court&#039;s impugned judgment was set aside because it rested on a factual basis not found in the Tribunal&#039;s order, even though the Tribunal was the final fact-finding authority. The Revenue did not dispute that discrepancy, and the point had not been argued before the High Court in the relevant form. The matter was restored to the High Court for fresh disposal, and the reference was to be heard and decided again on the proper factual basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40289</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>