<?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>2016 (5) TMI 74 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327093</link>
    <description>The appellant&#039;s challenge against the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax&#039;s order for waiver of interest on capital gains under Section 119(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was dismissed by the High Court. The Court upheld the denial of waiver, emphasizing that equitable remedies cannot override statutory provisions. The appellant&#039;s arguments regarding the validity of notifications and seeking partial waiver were rejected, with the Court affirming that statutory matters are governed by CBDT directions. The High Court concluded that it lacked the authority to interfere with the statutory impact of fiscal legislation, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 May 2016 00:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=426408" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (5) TMI 74 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327093</link>
      <description>The appellant&#039;s challenge against the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax&#039;s order for waiver of interest on capital gains under Section 119(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was dismissed by the High Court. The Court upheld the denial of waiver, emphasizing that equitable remedies cannot override statutory provisions. The appellant&#039;s arguments regarding the validity of notifications and seeking partial waiver were rejected, with the Court affirming that statutory matters are governed by CBDT directions. The High Court concluded that it lacked the authority to interfere with the statutory impact of fiscal legislation, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327093</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>