<?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>2010 (1) TMI 1317 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463753</link>
    <description>Interest was payable on a security amount deposited in penalty proceedings and later refunded, because the department retained the money during the intervening period. Section 29 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act governed both the entitlement to interest and the applicable rate, so the assessee was entitled to interest for the period of wrongful retention from 8 October 1976 to 16 May 1997 at the statutory rate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2025 17:48:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=850608" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (1) TMI 1317 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463753</link>
      <description>Interest was payable on a security amount deposited in penalty proceedings and later refunded, because the department retained the money during the intervening period. Section 29 of the U.P. Trade Tax Act governed both the entitlement to interest and the applicable rate, so the assessee was entitled to interest for the period of wrongful retention from 8 October 1976 to 16 May 1997 at the statutory rate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463753</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>