<?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>1976 (10) TMI 59 - ITAT INDORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66955</link>
    <description>Condonation of delay in departmental appeals requires a satisfactory explanation covering the entire period of default, not only the final period before filing. Here, the 109-day delay was not explained for the earlier period, and the accompanying affidavit was found unreliable because it lacked a proper evidentiary basis and was grounded mainly in conjecture. As sufficient cause was not established, condonation was refused and the appeals were treated as time-barred and not entertained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Oct 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Mar 2011 13:08:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=105390" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (10) TMI 59 - ITAT INDORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66955</link>
      <description>Condonation of delay in departmental appeals requires a satisfactory explanation covering the entire period of default, not only the final period before filing. Here, the 109-day delay was not explained for the earlier period, and the accompanying affidavit was found unreliable because it lacked a proper evidentiary basis and was grounded mainly in conjecture. As sufficient cause was not established, condonation was refused and the appeals were treated as time-barred and not entertained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Oct 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66955</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>