<?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 (11) TMI 115 - ITAT MADRAS-C</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70137</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Appellate Assistant Commissioner&#039;s decision to cancel penalties imposed under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act for late filing of wealth-tax returns. The Tribunal accepted the assessee&#039;s claim of a bona fide belief regarding wealth-tax liability, noting the voluntary filing of returns and lack of deliberate defiance of the law. Revenue&#039;s argument against penalty cancellation was rejected, emphasizing the absence of deliberate misconduct by the assessee. The Tribunal dismissed Revenue&#039;s appeals, emphasizing penalties should be imposed only for deliberate defiance of the law, which was not evident in this case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:29:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=108490" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (11) TMI 115 - ITAT MADRAS-C</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70137</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Appellate Assistant Commissioner&#039;s decision to cancel penalties imposed under Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act for late filing of wealth-tax returns. The Tribunal accepted the assessee&#039;s claim of a bona fide belief regarding wealth-tax liability, noting the voluntary filing of returns and lack of deliberate defiance of the law. Revenue&#039;s argument against penalty cancellation was rejected, emphasizing the absence of deliberate misconduct by the assessee. The Tribunal dismissed Revenue&#039;s appeals, emphasizing penalties should be imposed only for deliberate defiance of the law, which was not evident in this case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70137</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>