<?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>1975 (8) TMI 43 - GUJARAT High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39540</link>
    <description>The mistaken allowance of a deduction for a belated annuity deposit was treated as a mistake apparent from the record because the statutory preconditions for condonation had not been met. The discretion to condone delay under the annuity deposit scheme was not unfettered; it depended on compliance with the prescribed application procedure, prior approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, and a written order under the relevant scheme provisions. On the admitted facts, those requirements were absent, so the entry allowing the deduction could not be a lawful exercise of discretion. The rectification under section 154 was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Apr 2010 11:40:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=78086" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (8) TMI 43 - GUJARAT High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39540</link>
      <description>The mistaken allowance of a deduction for a belated annuity deposit was treated as a mistake apparent from the record because the statutory preconditions for condonation had not been met. The discretion to condone delay under the annuity deposit scheme was not unfettered; it depended on compliance with the prescribed application procedure, prior approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, and a written order under the relevant scheme provisions. On the admitted facts, those requirements were absent, so the entry allowing the deduction could not be a lawful exercise of discretion. The rectification under section 154 was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39540</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>