<?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>2026 (1) TMI 1685 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471895</link>
    <description>Condonation of a delayed appeal requires specific, supported explanations for each period of default. Reliance on a possible remedy under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, delayed procurement of proof of service, and a pending review application was insufficient because relevant dates and steps taken were not specified. Proof of service was not shown to be necessary before filing. The delay was therefore not condonable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2026 13:47:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=924946" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 1685 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471895</link>
      <description>Condonation of a delayed appeal requires specific, supported explanations for each period of default. Reliance on a possible remedy under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, delayed procurement of proof of service, and a pending review application was insufficient because relevant dates and steps taken were not specified. Proof of service was not shown to be necessary before filing. The delay was therefore not condonable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=471895</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>