<?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 (1) TMI 154 - ITAT MADRAS-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69512</link>
    <description>Disclosure under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance, 1975 was held to extend protection against penalty consequences under the wealth-tax law where the assessee&#039;s wealth-tax liability arose only as a consequence of that disclosure. On that construction, no separate disclosure under section 15 was required, and penalty for late filing of the consequential wealth-tax returns could not be sustained. The Tribunal also accepted that the assessee had reasonable cause for the delay because it was believed the disclosure would cover the resulting wealth-tax compliance, including reliance on erroneous advice. The penalties were therefore unsustainable and the departmental appeals failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jan 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2011 14:04:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=107873" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (1) TMI 154 - ITAT MADRAS-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69512</link>
      <description>Disclosure under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Ordinance, 1975 was held to extend protection against penalty consequences under the wealth-tax law where the assessee&#039;s wealth-tax liability arose only as a consequence of that disclosure. On that construction, no separate disclosure under section 15 was required, and penalty for late filing of the consequential wealth-tax returns could not be sustained. The Tribunal also accepted that the assessee had reasonable cause for the delay because it was believed the disclosure would cover the resulting wealth-tax compliance, including reliance on erroneous advice. The penalties were therefore unsustainable and the departmental appeals failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jan 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69512</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>