<?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 (3) TMI 66 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16203</link>
    <description>The return was due before the search and seizure, and the taxpayer did not seek extension, respond effectively to notices, or avail the opportunity to copy seized documents. On that factual basis, the explanation that search and non-supply of documents prevented filing was found insufficient, so the cancellation of registration and best judgment assessment were not interfered with and the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2009 17:43:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=55203" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (3) TMI 66 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16203</link>
      <description>The return was due before the search and seizure, and the taxpayer did not seek extension, respond effectively to notices, or avail the opportunity to copy seized documents. On that factual basis, the explanation that search and non-supply of documents prevented filing was found insufficient, so the cancellation of registration and best judgment assessment were not interfered with and the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16203</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>