<?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>2008 (7) TMI 219 - HIGH COURT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32029</link>
    <description>The appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was dismissed by the Court due to a delay in filing. The appellant&#039;s argument that the appeal was within time was rejected, as the Court found that the appellant was aware of the impugned order since 2005, indicating a lack of clean hands. Emphasizing the significance of adhering to statutory timelines, the Court dismissed the appeal on grounds of limitation, highlighting the importance of acting diligently and in good faith in legal proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70671" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 219 - HIGH COURT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32029</link>
      <description>The appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was dismissed by the Court due to a delay in filing. The appellant&#039;s argument that the appeal was within time was rejected, as the Court found that the appellant was aware of the impugned order since 2005, indicating a lack of clean hands. Emphasizing the significance of adhering to statutory timelines, the Court dismissed the appeal on grounds of limitation, highlighting the importance of acting diligently and in good faith in legal proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32029</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>