<?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>1976 (4) TMI 102 - ITAT MADRAS-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69179</link>
    <description>Penalty for delayed filing of a wealth-tax return is not justified where the assessee&#039;s explanation shows bona fide reasons beyond control. The delay was admitted, but the assessee was aged and ill, was residing away from the place where the return had to be prepared and filed, and had sought extension of time. Those circumstances negatived any wilful or wanton omission, so the explanation was treated as sufficient and the penalty was cancelled.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 03 Apr 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2011 16:11:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=107550" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (4) TMI 102 - ITAT MADRAS-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69179</link>
      <description>Penalty for delayed filing of a wealth-tax return is not justified where the assessee&#039;s explanation shows bona fide reasons beyond control. The delay was admitted, but the assessee was aged and ill, was residing away from the place where the return had to be prepared and filed, and had sought extension of time. Those circumstances negatived any wilful or wanton omission, so the explanation was treated as sufficient and the penalty was cancelled.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 03 Apr 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69179</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>