<?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>1999 (8) TMI 1033 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462179</link>
    <description>Section 69D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was held inapplicable because the documents relied on for the borrowals were found to be promissory notes, not hundies. The Tribunal&#039;s finding on the character of the documents was one of fact and was not interfered with. The Court also followed its earlier view on the same issue, resulting in the questions being answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 May 2025 14:19:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=825619" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (8) TMI 1033 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462179</link>
      <description>Section 69D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was held inapplicable because the documents relied on for the borrowals were found to be promissory notes, not hundies. The Tribunal&#039;s finding on the character of the documents was one of fact and was not interfered with. The Court also followed its earlier view on the same issue, resulting in the questions being answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462179</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>