<?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 (11) TMI 1171 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781703</link>
    <description>HC allowed condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) for an assessee who filed Form 9A late due to reliance on a misprint in a widely used Commercial Bare Act. The court held the publication error caused genuine hardship and a bona fide mistake by tax advisers, and the delay was inadvertent and not prejudicial. The AO should have condoned the delay and granted the benefit of Sections 11 and 12; refusal caused grave hardship, so the delay must be excused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2025 08:52:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=865516" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 1171 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781703</link>
      <description>HC allowed condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) for an assessee who filed Form 9A late due to reliance on a misprint in a widely used Commercial Bare Act. The court held the publication error caused genuine hardship and a bona fide mistake by tax advisers, and the delay was inadvertent and not prejudicial. The AO should have condoned the delay and granted the benefit of Sections 11 and 12; refusal caused grave hardship, so the delay must be excused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781703</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>