<?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 (2) TMI 427 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221022</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the refusal to invoke powers under Section 220 (2A) of the Income Tax Act for waiver of interest levied. The Court held that once the Commissioner found a condition under Section 220 (2A) unsatisfied, subsequent applications for the same relief were incompetent. Emphasizing the importance of complying with statutory conditions, the Court underscored the need for cooperation in tax recovery proceedings and discouraged repetitive applications for relief. The decision reaffirmed the authority&#039;s discretion in assessing compliance and cautioned against Court interference, particularly when non-cooperation was linked to default in payment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=194379" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (2) TMI 427 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221022</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the refusal to invoke powers under Section 220 (2A) of the Income Tax Act for waiver of interest levied. The Court held that once the Commissioner found a condition under Section 220 (2A) unsatisfied, subsequent applications for the same relief were incompetent. Emphasizing the importance of complying with statutory conditions, the Court underscored the need for cooperation in tax recovery proceedings and discouraged repetitive applications for relief. The decision reaffirmed the authority&#039;s discretion in assessing compliance and cautioned against Court interference, particularly when non-cooperation was linked to default in payment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221022</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>