<?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>1985 (5) TMI 91 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61003</link>
    <description>Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was treated as applicable to condonation of delay under the assessee&#039;s section 146 application because the governing statute did not specifically exclude it. Following the binding Punjab and Haryana High Court view, the Tribunal held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in condoning the delay, and the condonation was therefore sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 25 May 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:21:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=99450" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (5) TMI 91 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61003</link>
      <description>Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was treated as applicable to condonation of delay under the assessee&#039;s section 146 application because the governing statute did not specifically exclude it. Following the binding Punjab and Haryana High Court view, the Tribunal held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in condoning the delay, and the condonation was therefore sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 25 May 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61003</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>