<?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>1998 (9) TMI 9 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14759</link>
    <description>The Commissioner&#039;s refusal to waive interest for belated returns was upheld because the assessee&#039;s explanations were not shown to justify the continuing delay over several years. The earlier tax raid and delay in finalising accounts were not established as the cause of the defaults for the assessment years in question, and the death of a partner was held insufficient to excuse the later delay. Prior belated filings did not create any automatic entitlement to waiver for subsequent years, and a separate waiver granted for later years on different facts did not render the present order arbitrary. The refusal was therefore neither arbitrary nor based on irrelevant considerations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:04:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=53759" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (9) TMI 9 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14759</link>
      <description>The Commissioner&#039;s refusal to waive interest for belated returns was upheld because the assessee&#039;s explanations were not shown to justify the continuing delay over several years. The earlier tax raid and delay in finalising accounts were not established as the cause of the defaults for the assessment years in question, and the death of a partner was held insufficient to excuse the later delay. Prior belated filings did not create any automatic entitlement to waiver for subsequent years, and a separate waiver granted for later years on different facts did not render the present order arbitrary. The refusal was therefore neither arbitrary nor based on irrelevant considerations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14759</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>