<?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>1995 (9) TMI 327 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158211</link>
    <description>Penalty was not sustainable where the assessee&#039;s accounts were found to be incorrect, because section 12(5) applied only when the accounts were correct but the return was incorrect. Any levy, if at all, could arise only under section 12(3), but that provision required proof of mala fides, which was not established. The Tribunal&#039;s deletion of penalty was therefore upheld, and the revision was dismissed in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Oct 2013 12:27:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=330153" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (9) TMI 327 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158211</link>
      <description>Penalty was not sustainable where the assessee&#039;s accounts were found to be incorrect, because section 12(5) applied only when the accounts were correct but the return was incorrect. Any levy, if at all, could arise only under section 12(3), but that provision required proof of mala fides, which was not established. The Tribunal&#039;s deletion of penalty was therefore upheld, and the revision was dismissed in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158211</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>