<?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>1990 (10) TMI 6 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5317</link>
    <description>Levy of interest under section 139 of the Income-tax Act was treated as implying extension of time to the date of filing the return, so the basis for penalty under section 271(1)(a) for delay in furnishing the return ceased to survive. On that agreed legal position, a reference confined to the penalty question was held to be unnecessary and meaningless in isolation. The proposed reference was therefore rejected and the appeals were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2015 18:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=44400" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (10) TMI 6 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5317</link>
      <description>Levy of interest under section 139 of the Income-tax Act was treated as implying extension of time to the date of filing the return, so the basis for penalty under section 271(1)(a) for delay in furnishing the return ceased to survive. On that agreed legal position, a reference confined to the penalty question was held to be unnecessary and meaningless in isolation. The proposed reference was therefore rejected and the appeals were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5317</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>