<?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>2013 (1) TMI 513 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220408</link>
    <description>The High Court held that the order dismissing the petitioner&#039;s appeal without condoning the delay constituted an order in the appeal. As such, the petitioner had not forfeited their appellate right, rendering the revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act not maintainable. The court relied on precedent to support this interpretation and dismissed the writ petition, affirming the decision of the revisional authority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=193774" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (1) TMI 513 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220408</link>
      <description>The High Court held that the order dismissing the petitioner&#039;s appeal without condoning the delay constituted an order in the appeal. As such, the petitioner had not forfeited their appellate right, rendering the revision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act not maintainable. The court relied on precedent to support this interpretation and dismissed the writ petition, affirming the decision of the revisional authority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220408</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>