<?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 (5) TMI 2285 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468838</link>
    <description>An order framing charges was set aside because it was cryptic and did not disclose the material basis for proceeding against the revisionist. The court held that, without clear indication of the evidence or material relied on, the charge-framing order could not be sustained in its existing form. The matter was remanded to the trial court for a fresh hearing on the question of framing charges and for a new reasoned order after considering the parties&#039; submissions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 May 2026 19:11:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=903353" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 2285 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468838</link>
      <description>An order framing charges was set aside because it was cryptic and did not disclose the material basis for proceeding against the revisionist. The court held that, without clear indication of the evidence or material relied on, the charge-framing order could not be sustained in its existing form. The matter was remanded to the trial court for a fresh hearing on the question of framing charges and for a new reasoned order after considering the parties&#039; submissions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Money Laundering</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468838</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>