https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8633 Section 288(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was construed as applying only where a penalty had been imposed for a default under the 1961 Act itself. The provision in section 297(2)(g) could deem a penalty under the new Act for an earlier default under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, but that legal fiction was confined to the penalty and did not extend the disqualification. The expressions "such penalty" and "penalty has been imposed under this Act" were read to exclude penalties attributable only to pre-1961 defaults. On that basis, disqualification was not attracted to the petitioner. en-us Tue, 15 Feb 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Mar 2017 13:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8633 Section 288(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was construed as applying only where a penalty had been imposed for a default under the 1961 Act itself. The provision in section 297(2)(g) could deem a penalty under the new Act for an earlier default under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, but that legal fiction was confined to the penalty and did not extend the disqualification. The expressions "such penalty" and "penalty has been imposed under this Act" were read to exclude penalties attributable only to pre-1961 defaults. On that basis, disqualification was not attracted to the petitioner. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 15 Feb 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8633