{"id":18,"date":"2008-02-08T19:14:31","date_gmt":"2008-02-08T19:14:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=18"},"modified":"2008-02-08T19:14:31","modified_gmt":"2008-02-08T19:14:31","slug":"cit-vs-silver-streak-delhi-high-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-silver-streak-delhi-high-court\/","title":{"rendered":"CIT vs. Silver Streak (Delhi High Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/downloads2\/index.php?silver_streak_costs.pdf \"><img data-recalc-dims=\"1\" decoding=\"async\" border=\"0\" src=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.itatonline.org\/images\/download.gif?w=605\" class=\"alignright\" \/><\/a>High Court deprectaes the practice of the department in mechnaically filing frivolous appeals. Observes that it causes inconvenience and wastes the time of the Court and results in sidelining of important issues. It accordingly imposes costs of Rs. 10,000 on the Revenue to discourage such filings.     <\/p>\n<p>  See also: <a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/downloads\/download.php?f=amar_tea_record.pdf\" target=\"_blank\"><strong> CIT vs. Amar Tea Ltd  (Bombay High Court) <\/strong><\/a> &#038; <a href=\"http:\/\/www.itatonline.org\/pdf\/pradeep_sangodker_delay_judgement.pdf\" target=\"_blank\"><strong>Pradeep Sangodkar vs. State<\/strong><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>High Court deprectaes the practice of the department in mechnaically filing frivolous appeals. Observes that it causes inconvenience and wastes the time of the Court and results in sidelining of important issues. It accordingly imposes costs of Rs. 10,000 on &hellip;<\/p>\n<p class=\"read-more\"> <a class=\"\" href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/cit-vs-silver-streak-delhi-high-court\/\"> <span class=\"screen-reader-text\">CIT vs. Silver Streak (Delhi High Court)<\/span> Read More &raquo;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-high-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=18"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=18"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=18"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=18"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}