<?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>1992 (1) TMI 196 - ITAT PATNA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70976</link>
    <description>An amnesty scheme granting relief from penalty under the Wealth-tax Act must be construed liberally to encourage voluntary disclosure within the stipulated period. The Tribunal held that the scheme was not confined to first-time or undiscovered defaults and could cover earlier defaults, pending matters, and completed assessments where the circular language indicated such coverage. Clarificatory references in the CBDT materials supported this broader reading, while the separate conditions for waiver under section 19B did not limit the scheme&#039;s wider relief. Penalty under section 18(1)(a) was therefore not exigible, and the assessee was entitled to the scheme&#039;s benefit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Apr 2011 14:46:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=109308" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (1) TMI 196 - ITAT PATNA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70976</link>
      <description>An amnesty scheme granting relief from penalty under the Wealth-tax Act must be construed liberally to encourage voluntary disclosure within the stipulated period. The Tribunal held that the scheme was not confined to first-time or undiscovered defaults and could cover earlier defaults, pending matters, and completed assessments where the circular language indicated such coverage. Clarificatory references in the CBDT materials supported this broader reading, while the separate conditions for waiver under section 19B did not limit the scheme&#039;s wider relief. Penalty under section 18(1)(a) was therefore not exigible, and the assessee was entitled to the scheme&#039;s benefit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Jan 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70976</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>