<?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 (3) TMI 95 - ITAT MADRAS-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69189</link>
    <description>Penalty for late filing of wealth-tax returns had to be levied at the rate in force on the respective due dates, because the default was complete when the returns became overdue. The later enhanced rate could not be applied to a default already committed, and the Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s contention that the default continued after amendment so as to attract the higher rate. The penalty was therefore confined to the pre-amendment rate applicable on each date of default.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2011 16:38:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=107560" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (3) TMI 95 - ITAT MADRAS-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69189</link>
      <description>Penalty for late filing of wealth-tax returns had to be levied at the rate in force on the respective due dates, because the default was complete when the returns became overdue. The later enhanced rate could not be applied to a default already committed, and the Tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s contention that the default continued after amendment so as to attract the higher rate. The penalty was therefore confined to the pre-amendment rate applicable on each date of default.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69189</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>