<?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>2016 (11) TMI 1639 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282545</link>
    <description>Condonation of delay was refused in respect of a 554-day delay, and the appeal was dismissed as a consequence. The operative point is that the court declined to entertain the matter after finding the delay application unsustainable, so the substantive appeal did not proceed. The document reflects only the procedural outcome and does not disclose any further legal issue or merits determination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Aug 2019 11:10:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=583417" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 1639 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282545</link>
      <description>Condonation of delay was refused in respect of a 554-day delay, and the appeal was dismissed as a consequence. The operative point is that the court declined to entertain the matter after finding the delay application unsustainable, so the substantive appeal did not proceed. The document reflects only the procedural outcome and does not disclose any further legal issue or merits determination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282545</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>