https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356180 The Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 required installment payments within the prescribed time, and the scheme contained no provision for extension of time or condonation of delay. On that basis, the HC held that delayed deposit of the third and final installment could not be directed to be accepted. The petitioner therefore was not entitled to make the payment after the due date, and the rejection of the request was upheld. The precedent cited by the petitioner was treated as distinguishable on facts. en-us Tue, 20 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Feb 2018 08:30:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356180 The Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 required installment payments within the prescribed time, and the scheme contained no provision for extension of time or condonation of delay. On that basis, the HC held that delayed deposit of the third and final installment could not be directed to be accepted. The petitioner therefore was not entitled to make the payment after the due date, and the rejection of the request was upheld. The precedent cited by the petitioner was treated as distinguishable on facts. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 20 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356180