<?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 (10) TMI 229 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779433</link>
    <description>Applications under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay in filing a return should be dealt with on a justice-oriented, not pedantic, basis. The text states that where a short delay is satisfactorily explained, there is no justification to refuse condonation. It further notes that, on those facts, the rejection order and the consequential intimation under Section 143(1) were quashed and the writ petition succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2025 09:10:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=856399" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (10) TMI 229 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779433</link>
      <description>Applications under Section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay in filing a return should be dealt with on a justice-oriented, not pedantic, basis. The text states that where a short delay is satisfactorily explained, there is no justification to refuse condonation. It further notes that, on those facts, the rejection order and the consequential intimation under Section 143(1) were quashed and the writ petition succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779433</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>