<?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 (2) TMI 1049 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191035</link>
    <description>Delay in filing the appeal was condoned on the basis of sufficient cause, as the Director&#039;s paralysis explained the default and there was no indication of negligence or dilatory intent. The liberal approach to condonation was applied, with substantial justice preferred over technical objections where the explanation was bona fide. The matter was then restored to the first appellate authority for disposal on merits, and the assessee was to be given an opportunity of hearing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Mar 2017 11:23:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=461539" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 1049 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191035</link>
      <description>Delay in filing the appeal was condoned on the basis of sufficient cause, as the Director&#039;s paralysis explained the default and there was no indication of negligence or dilatory intent. The liberal approach to condonation was applied, with substantial justice preferred over technical objections where the explanation was bona fide. The matter was then restored to the first appellate authority for disposal on merits, and the assessee was to be given an opportunity of hearing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191035</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>