<?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>1998 (1) TMI 1 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5633</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court reviewed a case concerning the levy of interest on the appellant for tax default under section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act. The appellant&#039;s application for interest reduction or waiver under section 220(2A) was rejected by the Central Board of Direct Taxes without providing specific reasons. The High Court upheld the rejection, but the Supreme Court emphasized the need for quasi-judicial decisions to be supported by reasons. The Court ruled that while section 220(2A) does not explicitly require reasons, a speaking order is necessary for judicial review. The Court set aside previous orders, directing reconsideration of the application by the Chief Commissioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=44716" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (1) TMI 1 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5633</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court reviewed a case concerning the levy of interest on the appellant for tax default under section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act. The appellant&#039;s application for interest reduction or waiver under section 220(2A) was rejected by the Central Board of Direct Taxes without providing specific reasons. The High Court upheld the rejection, but the Supreme Court emphasized the need for quasi-judicial decisions to be supported by reasons. The Court ruled that while section 220(2A) does not explicitly require reasons, a speaking order is necessary for judicial review. The Court set aside previous orders, directing reconsideration of the application by the Chief Commissioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5633</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>