<?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 (12) TMI 1182 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783642</link>
    <description>Pending a statutory appeal, the tax authorities were required to examine the taxpayer&#039;s request under section 220(6) of the Income-tax Act on its merits and not treat the representation as already concluded by the assessment recovery. The court directed reconsideration within six weeks and required refund of any amount recovered beyond the 20% threshold, reinforcing that recovery should not exceed the prescribed limit without proper consideration of the stay request.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2025 08:30:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=872683" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (12) TMI 1182 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783642</link>
      <description>Pending a statutory appeal, the tax authorities were required to examine the taxpayer&#039;s request under section 220(6) of the Income-tax Act on its merits and not treat the representation as already concluded by the assessment recovery. The court directed reconsideration within six weeks and required refund of any amount recovered beyond the 20% threshold, reinforcing that recovery should not exceed the prescribed limit without proper consideration of the stay request.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783642</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>