<?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>2016 (8) TMI 1044 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331660</link>
    <description>Penalty provisions under the Income Tax Act were examined with focus on the limitation for invoking penalties; the penalty under those penal provisions was quashed because it was invoked after the six-month limitation, and therefore could not validly be imposed. The court sustained the High Courts decision on that single ground, dismissed the appeal as unnecessary to decide other legal questions, and left other legal issues open without addressing them.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Jan 2026 11:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=439514" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (8) TMI 1044 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331660</link>
      <description>Penalty provisions under the Income Tax Act were examined with focus on the limitation for invoking penalties; the penalty under those penal provisions was quashed because it was invoked after the six-month limitation, and therefore could not validly be imposed. The court sustained the High Courts decision on that single ground, dismissed the appeal as unnecessary to decide other legal questions, and left other legal issues open without addressing them.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331660</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>