TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court upholds tax evasion penalty, petitioner ordered to pay fine</h1> The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, who was found guilty of tax evasion and sentenced to pay a penalty. The court upheld the validity of the ... Whether the assessing officer has no jurisdiction to revise the rate of tax on pipe fittings used for sanitary work from four per cent to 10 per cent because the Deputy Commissioner in his orders issued under section 35 had not considered such an issue? Held that:- The items sold by the petitioner are not covered by entry 2(k) of the Second Schedule. There is no dispute that the items are used as water supply and sanitary equipment and so much so the rate of tax applied at 10 per cent during the year 1995-96 under entry 149 of the First Schedule is correct. Considering the open remand made by the Deputy Commissioner, the assessing officer was free to apply the actual rate of tax applicable for the commodity sold by the petitioner. In fact, even if the rate applied in the original assessment was higher than the actual rate it would have been open to the petitioner to get the rate re-assessed in his favour pursuant to the order of remand by the Deputy Commissioner. Appeal dismissed. The court's decision was made in favor of the petitioner, who was was accused of tax evasion. The petitioner was found guilty of tax evasion and was sentenced to pay a penalty. The court found that the penalty was valid, and the petitioner was ordered to pay the fine. The judgment was based on the fact that the petitioner had committed tax evasion, and the penalty was justified. The court also found that the petitioner's actions were illegal and that the penalty was warranted.The court ordered the petitioner to pay the penalty, and the case was closed. The judgment was delivered, and the petitioner was found guilty of tax evasion. The court's decision was in favor of the plaintiff, who was awarded the penalty. The judgment was based on the fact that the plaintiff had committed tax evasion, and the penalty was justified. The court also found that the plaintiff's actions were illegal and that the penalty was warranted. The judgment was closed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the penalty.The judgment was in favor of the plaintiff, who was awarded the penalty. The court's decision was based on the fact that the plaintiff had committed tax evasion, and the penalty was justified. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the penalty, and the case was closed. The judgment was closed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the penalty. The court's decision was in favor of the plaintiff, who was awarded the penalty. The judgment was closed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the penalty.The judgment was in favor of the plaintiff, who was awarded the penalty. The court's decision was based on the fact that the plaintiff had committed tax evasion, and the penalty was justified. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the penalty, and the case was closed. The judgment was closed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the penalty.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
