<?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 (4) TMI 30 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15061</link>
    <description>A statutory time limit under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 could not be enlarged by judicial interpretation, so refusal to condone a 16-day delay in payment of tax was upheld. The explanation that resources could not be mobilised was too vague and insubstantial to justify relief, and the delay was not shown to have arisen from circumstances beyond the taxpayer&#039;s control. As a result, the declaration was validly treated as non est and the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:46:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=54061" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (4) TMI 30 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15061</link>
      <description>A statutory time limit under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 could not be enlarged by judicial interpretation, so refusal to condone a 16-day delay in payment of tax was upheld. The explanation that resources could not be mobilised was too vague and insubstantial to justify relief, and the delay was not shown to have arisen from circumstances beyond the taxpayer&#039;s control. As a result, the declaration was validly treated as non est and the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15061</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>