<?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>2023 (8) TMI 829 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441850</link>
    <description>The Court held that the delay condonation applications should have been decided within the time provided by the Act when filed in 1998, as all records would have been available then. The order passed after more than 20 years, citing unavailability of records, was set aside. The Principal Commissioner was directed to decide the applications afresh, making efforts to reconstruct the record with the petitioner&#039;s assistance and all available records. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2023 08:47:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=722960" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (8) TMI 829 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441850</link>
      <description>The Court held that the delay condonation applications should have been decided within the time provided by the Act when filed in 1998, as all records would have been available then. The order passed after more than 20 years, citing unavailability of records, was set aside. The Principal Commissioner was directed to decide the applications afresh, making efforts to reconstruct the record with the petitioner&#039;s assistance and all available records. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441850</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>