<?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>2015 (1) TMI 1073 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255874</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, finding no substantial question of law. The Court noted the appellants failed to provide a credible explanation for the 1100-day delay, emphasizing the importance of due diligence. The Court found the medical records did not support the claim of serious illness, leading to the dismissal of the appeals without costs awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2015 17:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=374804" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (1) TMI 1073 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255874</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, finding no substantial question of law. The Court noted the appellants failed to provide a credible explanation for the 1100-day delay, emphasizing the importance of due diligence. The Court found the medical records did not support the claim of serious illness, leading to the dismissal of the appeals without costs awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255874</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>