<?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>Court Questions 2984-Day Filing Delay; Highlights Need for Due Diligence Despite Alleged Bad Advice from C.A. Firm.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=20002</link>
    <description>Condonation of delay – delay of 2984 days – an experienced C.A firm could not have given such kind of wrong/ absurd advice on the facts prevailing in the instant case - even if it is considered that his C.A firm has given such an advice, it is not believable that a prudent man would not have cross verified the same or applied his mind over it - AT</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2014 11:01:20 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2014 11:01:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=364906" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Court Questions 2984-Day Filing Delay; Highlights Need for Due Diligence Despite Alleged Bad Advice from C.A. Firm.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=20002</link>
      <description>Condonation of delay – delay of 2984 days – an experienced C.A firm could not have given such kind of wrong/ absurd advice on the facts prevailing in the instant case - even if it is considered that his C.A firm has given such an advice, it is not believable that a prudent man would not have cross verified the same or applied his mind over it - AT</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2014 11:01:20 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=20002</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>