<?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>1980 (9) TMI 117 - ITAT DELHI-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63091</link>
    <description>Penalty for failure to pay self-assessment tax in time under section 140A(3) could not be sustained because the penalty provision had already been declared ultra vires and therefore unenforceable. The Tribunal rejected the assessee&#039;s plea of paucity of funds on the facts, noting that financial inability did not excuse non-payment when liquid funds were available. The decisive point was the invalidity of the penalty-enabling provision itself, so the penalty was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Jan 2011 17:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=101535" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (9) TMI 117 - ITAT DELHI-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63091</link>
      <description>Penalty for failure to pay self-assessment tax in time under section 140A(3) could not be sustained because the penalty provision had already been declared ultra vires and therefore unenforceable. The Tribunal rejected the assessee&#039;s plea of paucity of funds on the facts, noting that financial inability did not excuse non-payment when liquid funds were available. The decisive point was the invalidity of the penalty-enabling provision itself, so the penalty was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63091</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>