<?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>2007 (9) TMI 190 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3494</link>
    <description>The High Court held that no interest under Section 217 of the Income Tax Act was chargeable to the assessee company for the assessment year 1979-80, despite not filing a statement of income/estimate of income as required under Section 209A. The court found that since no advance tax was payable based on the computation of income, the assessee was not obligated to file the statement of advance tax. The court&#039;s decision favored the assessee, ruling against the Revenue&#039;s contention for interest under Section 217.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=42846" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (9) TMI 190 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3494</link>
      <description>The High Court held that no interest under Section 217 of the Income Tax Act was chargeable to the assessee company for the assessment year 1979-80, despite not filing a statement of income/estimate of income as required under Section 209A. The court found that since no advance tax was payable based on the computation of income, the assessee was not obligated to file the statement of advance tax. The court&#039;s decision favored the assessee, ruling against the Revenue&#039;s contention for interest under Section 217.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3494</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>