<?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>2008 (9) TMI 585 - Karnataka High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202095</link>
    <description>Penalty for failure to obtain a tax audit was treated as timely where the statutory limitation period was computed under the applicable penalty framework, including the relevant completion and appellate-order dates. Records comprising party-wise registers, cash sales records and purchase registers were treated as books of account; therefore, failure to audit existing books attracted penalty for non-audit rather than the provision applicable where no books are maintained. Audit liability depended on turnover exceeding the prescribed threshold, not merely on commission receipts. A mistaken belief that commission income alone was relevant did not constitute reasonable cause for non-compliance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 May 2026 11:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=175685" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (9) TMI 585 - Karnataka High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202095</link>
      <description>Penalty for failure to obtain a tax audit was treated as timely where the statutory limitation period was computed under the applicable penalty framework, including the relevant completion and appellate-order dates. Records comprising party-wise registers, cash sales records and purchase registers were treated as books of account; therefore, failure to audit existing books attracted penalty for non-audit rather than the provision applicable where no books are maintained. Audit liability depended on turnover exceeding the prescribed threshold, not merely on commission receipts. A mistaken belief that commission income alone was relevant did not constitute reasonable cause for non-compliance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202095</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>