<?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>2026 (7) TMI 1170 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795284</link>
    <description>Revenue&#039;s delayed writ challenge to the Settlement Commission&#039;s orders was not maintainable because it had knowledge of the settlement order when made, yet sought rectification only after five years and filed the writ petition seven years after the order. The delay was inadequately explained, and no basis for writ interference with either the settlement or rectification orders was established. The challenge was therefore rejected in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 09:37:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=912475" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 1170 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795284</link>
      <description>Revenue&#039;s delayed writ challenge to the Settlement Commission&#039;s orders was not maintainable because it had knowledge of the settlement order when made, yet sought rectification only after five years and filed the writ petition seven years after the order. The delay was inadequately explained, and no basis for writ interference with either the settlement or rectification orders was established. The challenge was therefore rejected in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795284</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>