<?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>2000 (9) TMI 46 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14586</link>
    <description>The Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 was treated as a self-contained scheme requiring payment within the prescribed time, and no provision for condonation of delay was available. The benefit of the scheme could not be extended contrary to its terms, and the reasons offered for late payment were found insufficient even on the assumption that discretion existed. The petitioner was therefore not entitled to the scheme&#039;s benefit because the delayed payment could not be condoned.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2009 13:06:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=53586" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (9) TMI 46 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14586</link>
      <description>The Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 was treated as a self-contained scheme requiring payment within the prescribed time, and no provision for condonation of delay was available. The benefit of the scheme could not be extended contrary to its terms, and the reasons offered for late payment were found insufficient even on the assumption that discretion existed. The petitioner was therefore not entitled to the scheme&#039;s benefit because the delayed payment could not be condoned.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14586</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>