<?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 (1) TMI 1484 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462849</link>
    <description>A delay-condonation plea for a 979-day late appeal was rejected because the explanation was found wholly insufficient. The record showed that the certified copy of the Tribunal&#039;s order had been received well before limitation expired, yet no satisfactory account was given for the prolonged inaction, including the period after expiry of limitation and the later delay before filing. On those facts, the court refused to condone delay and the appeal was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 20 Jul 2025 23:10:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=837429" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (1) TMI 1484 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462849</link>
      <description>A delay-condonation plea for a 979-day late appeal was rejected because the explanation was found wholly insufficient. The record showed that the certified copy of the Tribunal&#039;s order had been received well before limitation expired, yet no satisfactory account was given for the prolonged inaction, including the period after expiry of limitation and the later delay before filing. On those facts, the court refused to condone delay and the appeal was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462849</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>