<?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>1980 (6) TMI 61 - ITAT DELHI-C</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64140</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, condoning the delay in filing the application for registration of the partnership firm. The delay was attributed to the Advocate&#039;s mistaken advice, leading to the acceptance of the bona fides of the mistake and sufficient cause for the delay. The ITO was instructed to verify the firm&#039;s genuineness and proceed accordingly under section 185, resulting in the appeal being deemed allowed for statistical purposes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Feb 2011 10:46:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=102582" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (6) TMI 61 - ITAT DELHI-C</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64140</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, condoning the delay in filing the application for registration of the partnership firm. The delay was attributed to the Advocate&#039;s mistaken advice, leading to the acceptance of the bona fides of the mistake and sufficient cause for the delay. The ITO was instructed to verify the firm&#039;s genuineness and proceed accordingly under section 185, resulting in the appeal being deemed allowed for statistical purposes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64140</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>