https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6789 Section 297(2)(g) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was upheld against article 20(1) and article 14 challenges because it did not authorise a greater penalty than was previously permissible and its classification between pre- and post-commencement assessments had a rational basis. The Court further held that a notice issued under section 22(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 survived through the saving clause in section 297(2)(k) and could validly support penalty proceedings under the 1961 Act, so long as it was not inconsistent with the new provisions. The writ challenge was therefore rejected. en-us Mon, 14 Sep 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Feb 2009 10:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6789 Section 297(2)(g) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was upheld against article 20(1) and article 14 challenges because it did not authorise a greater penalty than was previously permissible and its classification between pre- and post-commencement assessments had a rational basis. The Court further held that a notice issued under section 22(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 survived through the saving clause in section 297(2)(k) and could validly support penalty proceedings under the 1961 Act, so long as it was not inconsistent with the new provisions. The writ challenge was therefore rejected. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 14 Sep 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6789