<?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>2017 (11) TMI 393 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350514</link>
    <description>Gross and unexplained delay can itself justify refusal of writ relief in tax matters, particularly where the challenge is brought years after the appellate order without supporting material. Here, the petitioner&#039;s poverty explanation was unsupported, and the Court treated the delay as sufficient ground to decline interference. On the merits, the reassessment, penalty and rectification orders were left undisturbed because the cheque under the voluntary disclosure scheme had been dishonoured, the assessment had attained finality, and the rectification request was itself belated. No tenable basis was shown to interfere with the impugned tax orders.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Nov 2017 06:48:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=495009" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 393 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350514</link>
      <description>Gross and unexplained delay can itself justify refusal of writ relief in tax matters, particularly where the challenge is brought years after the appellate order without supporting material. Here, the petitioner&#039;s poverty explanation was unsupported, and the Court treated the delay as sufficient ground to decline interference. On the merits, the reassessment, penalty and rectification orders were left undisturbed because the cheque under the voluntary disclosure scheme had been dishonoured, the assessment had attained finality, and the rectification request was itself belated. No tenable basis was shown to interfere with the impugned tax orders.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350514</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>