<?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>1992 (4) TMI 125 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81798</link>
    <description>An appeal dismissed for failure to comply with the pre-deposit requirement was considered for restoration, but the appellants had still not paid the penalty amount by the date of hearing. The Tribunal treated continued non-payment as decisive and refused to restore the appeal. The restoration application was therefore dismissed, reinforcing that compliance with the pre-deposit condition remained outstanding before any revival of the appeal could be granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 18:33:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=118943" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (4) TMI 125 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81798</link>
      <description>An appeal dismissed for failure to comply with the pre-deposit requirement was considered for restoration, but the appellants had still not paid the penalty amount by the date of hearing. The Tribunal treated continued non-payment as decisive and refused to restore the appeal. The restoration application was therefore dismissed, reinforcing that compliance with the pre-deposit condition remained outstanding before any revival of the appeal could be granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81798</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>