<?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>2020 (8) TMI 242 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397299</link>
    <description>The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the first respondent&#039;s order, and directed the processing of the return and refund claim, emphasizing the importance of substantial justice over procedural strictness. The Court found the petitioner&#039;s explanation for the delay genuine and criticized the authorities&#039; stringent approach. The delay in filing the return was ultimately condoned, with instructions to process the claim promptly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2020 18:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=619603" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (8) TMI 242 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397299</link>
      <description>The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the first respondent&#039;s order, and directed the processing of the return and refund claim, emphasizing the importance of substantial justice over procedural strictness. The Court found the petitioner&#039;s explanation for the delay genuine and criticized the authorities&#039; stringent approach. The delay in filing the return was ultimately condoned, with instructions to process the claim promptly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397299</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>