Warehousing permission requires deposit at the designated bonded warehouse; unauthorised diversion triggers confiscation, redemption fine and importer...
The High Court held that the authority erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of one day's delay in filing the return of income u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act. The reasoning that the return had already been processed u/s 143(1) with a demand raised was flawed and showed non-application of mind. The delay of one day was bona fide due to technical issues and should have been condoned following the principles laid down in the case of Jyotsna Mehta. The Court opined that the paramount jurisprudential principles mandate condonation of such a short delay caused by genuine reasons.
The High Court held that the authority erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for condonation of one day's delay in filing the return of income u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act. The reasoning that the return had already been processed u/s 143(1) with a demand raised was flawed and showed non-application of mind. The delay of one day was bona fide due to technical issues and should have been condoned following the principles laid down in the case of Jyotsna Mehta. The Court opined that the paramount jurisprudential principles mandate condonation of such a short delay caused by genuine reasons.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
