https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341651 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the rejection of the application for compounding. The court emphasized that compounding charges levied before considering the application were excessive and lacked legal authority. It held that rejection based solely on the delay in filing was unjustified. The court directed the authorities to reconsider the application without requiring upfront payment of the compounding fee, stating that fee payment should only be addressed after evaluating the application on its merits. en-us Tue, 11 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Aug 2017 10:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341651 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the rejection of the application for compounding. The court emphasized that compounding charges levied before considering the application were excessive and lacked legal authority. It held that rejection based solely on the delay in filing was unjustified. The court directed the authorities to reconsider the application without requiring upfront payment of the compounding fee, stating that fee payment should only be addressed after evaluating the application on its merits. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 11 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341651