<?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>2006 (3) TMI 140 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40395</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court held that while interest on the seized goods was not addressed, the appellants were liable to compensate the respondents for delays and losses. The appellants were directed to pay Rs. 75,000 to the respondents as costs within four weeks, serving as full settlement for the interest claim. Failure to comply would result in the appeal&#039;s dismissal with costs, emphasizing the importance of timely compliance with court orders to avoid legal consequences.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Apr 2014 18:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=78929" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (3) TMI 140 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40395</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court held that while interest on the seized goods was not addressed, the appellants were liable to compensate the respondents for delays and losses. The appellants were directed to pay Rs. 75,000 to the respondents as costs within four weeks, serving as full settlement for the interest claim. Failure to comply would result in the appeal&#039;s dismissal with costs, emphasizing the importance of timely compliance with court orders to avoid legal consequences.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40395</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>