<?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>1983 (4) TMI 33 - PATNA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28323</link>
    <description>Posting an income-tax return by certificate of posting to the correct office within the prescribed time raises a rebuttable presumption of due delivery and timely filing. The presumption is supported by section 27 of the General Clauses Act and section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, and is sufficient unless the Revenue proves otherwise. On that basis, the return was treated as filed in time, and the penalty under section 271(1)(a) was not sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Feb 2010 13:31:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=67321" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (4) TMI 33 - PATNA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28323</link>
      <description>Posting an income-tax return by certificate of posting to the correct office within the prescribed time raises a rebuttable presumption of due delivery and timely filing. The presumption is supported by section 27 of the General Clauses Act and section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, and is sufficient unless the Revenue proves otherwise. On that basis, the return was treated as filed in time, and the penalty under section 271(1)(a) was not sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28323</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>