<?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>2025 (5) TMI 623 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770351</link>
    <description>HC analyzed the quasi-judicial nature of power under Section 119(2)(b) of Income Tax Act. The Court held that tax authorities must provide reasonable hearing and issue reasoned orders when considering applications for condonation of delay in filing returns. The impugned order was set aside due to procedural deficiency of non-hearing, with directions to pass a fresh order after affording proper opportunity to the petitioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 May 2025 09:12:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=820588" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 623 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770351</link>
      <description>HC analyzed the quasi-judicial nature of power under Section 119(2)(b) of Income Tax Act. The Court held that tax authorities must provide reasonable hearing and issue reasoned orders when considering applications for condonation of delay in filing returns. The impugned order was set aside due to procedural deficiency of non-hearing, with directions to pass a fresh order after affording proper opportunity to the petitioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770351</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>