<?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>2021 (1) TMI 170 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402578</link>
    <description>The Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to allow appeals filed by the assessee, emphasizing the need to condone delays in e-filing appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The Court extended the time limit for e-filing appeals per Circular No.20/2016, treating e-appeals as filed within time. It emphasized adherence to e-filing procedures despite initial technical challenges and rejected Revenue&#039;s appeals to refile with condonation applications. The Court&#039;s decision favored the respondents/assessees, considering the one-time nature of the Circular&#039;s extension and avoiding further litigation on limitation issues. Substantial Questions of Law were left open for consideration, with no costs awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2021 15:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=632285" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (1) TMI 170 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402578</link>
      <description>The Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to allow appeals filed by the assessee, emphasizing the need to condone delays in e-filing appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The Court extended the time limit for e-filing appeals per Circular No.20/2016, treating e-appeals as filed within time. It emphasized adherence to e-filing procedures despite initial technical challenges and rejected Revenue&#039;s appeals to refile with condonation applications. The Court&#039;s decision favored the respondents/assessees, considering the one-time nature of the Circular&#039;s extension and avoiding further litigation on limitation issues. Substantial Questions of Law were left open for consideration, with no costs awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402578</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>