<?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>1984 (11) TMI 129 - ITAT DELHI-C</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64167</link>
    <description>Penalty for delayed filing of a wealth-tax return was held inapplicable where the assessee had disclosed the relevant asset in income-tax returns, filed wealth-tax returns voluntarily after receiving advice on market-value valuation, and showed no concealment of the gold stock. The bona fide belief that no wealth-tax return was required was accepted on the facts, so section 18(1)(a) penalty was cancelled as unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Feb 2011 12:11:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=102609" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (11) TMI 129 - ITAT DELHI-C</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64167</link>
      <description>Penalty for delayed filing of a wealth-tax return was held inapplicable where the assessee had disclosed the relevant asset in income-tax returns, filed wealth-tax returns voluntarily after receiving advice on market-value valuation, and showed no concealment of the gold stock. The bona fide belief that no wealth-tax return was required was accepted on the facts, so section 18(1)(a) penalty was cancelled as unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Nov 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64167</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>