<?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 (7) TMI 1214 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330616</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling that the levy of interest under Section 158BFA(1) for delayed filing of the return is mandatory. The Court emphasized that the appellant failed to seek adjustment of the seized cash within the required period and referenced relevant case law to support its decision. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the mandatory nature of the interest levy without the possibility of adjustment against the seized amount.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2016 18:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=436906" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 1214 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330616</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling that the levy of interest under Section 158BFA(1) for delayed filing of the return is mandatory. The Court emphasized that the appellant failed to seek adjustment of the seized cash within the required period and referenced relevant case law to support its decision. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the mandatory nature of the interest levy without the possibility of adjustment against the seized amount.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330616</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>