<?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>2025 (2) TMI 771 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766224</link>
    <description>Section 206C(1A) read with Rule 37C places the declaration burden in Form 27C on the purchaser, while the seller&#039;s role is to complete Part II and forward the form to the revenue within time. The text states that, once Part I is duly signed by the declarant and Part II is duly signed by the seller and submitted, the statutory scheme does not require the seller to independently verify the genuineness of the purchaser&#039;s declaration or the purchaser&#039;s end-use status. On that basis, the Revenue&#039;s contrary view was held inconsistent with the provision and prescribed form, and no substantial question of law was found to arise under section 260-A.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Feb 2026 13:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=799587" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 771 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766224</link>
      <description>Section 206C(1A) read with Rule 37C places the declaration burden in Form 27C on the purchaser, while the seller&#039;s role is to complete Part II and forward the form to the revenue within time. The text states that, once Part I is duly signed by the declarant and Part II is duly signed by the seller and submitted, the statutory scheme does not require the seller to independently verify the genuineness of the purchaser&#039;s declaration or the purchaser&#039;s end-use status. On that basis, the Revenue&#039;s contrary view was held inconsistent with the provision and prescribed form, and no substantial question of law was found to arise under section 260-A.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766224</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>