<?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>1991 (9) TMI 44 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21594</link>
    <description>The Tribunal&#039;s refusal to condone delay was upheld because the assessee&#039;s explanations for late filing were found unsatisfactory and its stand remained inconsistent, including a claim that the appeals were within time while also seeking condonation. On the materials, the finding that sufficient cause had not been shown was not perverse, and no question of law arose from that conclusion.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Sep 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:25:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=60593" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (9) TMI 44 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21594</link>
      <description>The Tribunal&#039;s refusal to condone delay was upheld because the assessee&#039;s explanations for late filing were found unsatisfactory and its stand remained inconsistent, including a claim that the appeals were within time while also seeking condonation. On the materials, the finding that sufficient cause had not been shown was not perverse, and no question of law arose from that conclusion.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Sep 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21594</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>