<?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>2017 (4) TMI 1104 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342134</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming the lower authorities&#039; decisions on penalty provisions under Section 271AAA and the non-retrospective effect of Explanation 2 to Section 132B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The judgment clarified the adjustment of seized cash against advance tax liability and highlighted the significance of legislative intent in determining the retrospective application of statutory provisions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 May 2017 12:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=466906" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 1104 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342134</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming the lower authorities&#039; decisions on penalty provisions under Section 271AAA and the non-retrospective effect of Explanation 2 to Section 132B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The judgment clarified the adjustment of seized cash against advance tax liability and highlighted the significance of legislative intent in determining the retrospective application of statutory provisions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342134</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>