<?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>2018 (2) TMI 309 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354888</link>
    <description>The Court upheld the Commissioner&#039;s decision to deny the refunds sought by a Private Limited Company for excess income tax paid in assessment years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. The company&#039;s delay in filing the claims was not condoned due to failure to meet the conditions specified in Circulars and instructions issued by the Board. Despite arguments for financial distress and inadvertent omissions in tax computation, the Court found the delay unjustifiable and dismissed the petitions challenging the Commissioner&#039;s order. The Court emphasized that the authority to admit claims for relief lies with the Board, and in this case, the delay could not be condoned based on existing instructions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 31 May 2018 13:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=507755" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 309 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354888</link>
      <description>The Court upheld the Commissioner&#039;s decision to deny the refunds sought by a Private Limited Company for excess income tax paid in assessment years 2004-2005 and 2005-2006. The company&#039;s delay in filing the claims was not condoned due to failure to meet the conditions specified in Circulars and instructions issued by the Board. Despite arguments for financial distress and inadvertent omissions in tax computation, the Court found the delay unjustifiable and dismissed the petitions challenging the Commissioner&#039;s order. The Court emphasized that the authority to admit claims for relief lies with the Board, and in this case, the delay could not be condoned based on existing instructions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354888</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>