<?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 (8) TMI 62 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14843</link>
    <description>Under section 25 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the 45-day appeal period runs from the date a copy of the Board&#039;s order is issued to the aggrieved person, with possible extension up to 60 days on sufficient cause. Regulation 15 of the BIFR Regulations, 1987 links issuance of the order to formal communication by the Board, and &quot;issued&quot; was treated as equivalent to &quot;served&quot; for limitation purposes. The effective starting point was therefore the date the petitioner actually received the certified copy, not the earlier date when another party forwarded a copy. On that basis, the appeal was held not to be time-barred, and the matter was remitted for consideration of condonation of delay.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:59:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=53843" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (8) TMI 62 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14843</link>
      <description>Under section 25 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, the 45-day appeal period runs from the date a copy of the Board&#039;s order is issued to the aggrieved person, with possible extension up to 60 days on sufficient cause. Regulation 15 of the BIFR Regulations, 1987 links issuance of the order to formal communication by the Board, and &quot;issued&quot; was treated as equivalent to &quot;served&quot; for limitation purposes. The effective starting point was therefore the date the petitioner actually received the certified copy, not the earlier date when another party forwarded a copy. On that basis, the appeal was held not to be time-barred, and the matter was remitted for consideration of condonation of delay.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14843</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>