<?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>1999 (5) TMI 17 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15731</link>
    <description>The court set aside the order rejecting the application for extension of time under section 80HHC(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, allowing the petitioner&#039;s request for an extension until December 2, 1997. The judgment emphasized the need for a balanced approach in considering the circumstances of the case and criticized the hypertechnical approach taken by the Commissioner. It highlighted the importance of demonstrating sufficient cause for seeking an extension of time under the Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:23:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=54731" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (5) TMI 17 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15731</link>
      <description>The court set aside the order rejecting the application for extension of time under section 80HHC(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, allowing the petitioner&#039;s request for an extension until December 2, 1997. The judgment emphasized the need for a balanced approach in considering the circumstances of the case and criticized the hypertechnical approach taken by the Commissioner. It highlighted the importance of demonstrating sufficient cause for seeking an extension of time under the Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15731</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>