<?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>2001 (5) TMI 22 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13806</link>
    <description>Discretionary waiver of interest under section 234C must be exercised judicially on relevant reasons, not on surmises, presumptions or an ipse dixit. Where the recorded reasons for refusing full waiver made it unclear what weight was given to unsupported assumptions, the order could not stand on its existing reasoning. The High Court therefore set aside the partial waiver order and directed the Commissioner to reconsider the matter afresh.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:20:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=52809" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (5) TMI 22 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13806</link>
      <description>Discretionary waiver of interest under section 234C must be exercised judicially on relevant reasons, not on surmises, presumptions or an ipse dixit. Where the recorded reasons for refusing full waiver made it unclear what weight was given to unsupported assumptions, the order could not stand on its existing reasoning. The High Court therefore set aside the partial waiver order and directed the Commissioner to reconsider the matter afresh.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13806</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>