<?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>2012 (12) TMI 1124 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191771</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 8-D(6) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was held unsustainable where tax deducted at source was deposited later with interest, the revenue suffered no loss, and no mala fide intention was shown. The Court applied the principle that a technical default causing no prejudice to the revenue does not justify penalty, and upheld the Tribunal&#039;s cancellation of the levy in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Dec 2018 16:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=466421" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (12) TMI 1124 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191771</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 8-D(6) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was held unsustainable where tax deducted at source was deposited later with interest, the revenue suffered no loss, and no mala fide intention was shown. The Court applied the principle that a technical default causing no prejudice to the revenue does not justify penalty, and upheld the Tribunal&#039;s cancellation of the levy in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191771</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>