<?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>1990 (3) TMI 121 - ITAT GAUHATI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65614</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals, canceling penalties imposed under sections 18(1)(c) and 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act. It found no deliberate concealment of assets or mala fide intention by the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized the independence of each assessment year and considered the reasonable cause for the delay in filing returns. Penalties were deemed unwarranted as there was no evidence of contumacious conduct or mens rea on the assessee&#039;s part.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:59:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=104052" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (3) TMI 121 - ITAT GAUHATI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65614</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals, canceling penalties imposed under sections 18(1)(c) and 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act. It found no deliberate concealment of assets or mala fide intention by the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized the independence of each assessment year and considered the reasonable cause for the delay in filing returns. Penalties were deemed unwarranted as there was no evidence of contumacious conduct or mens rea on the assessee&#039;s part.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65614</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>