https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8903 Where a return-filing default occurred under the 1922 Act but penalty proceedings were validly taken under section 297(2)(g) of the 1961 Act, section 271 of the 1961 Act governs the penalty. The Court held that this application does not violate Article 20(1) because the maximum penalty under the 1961 Act is not greater than under the old Act. It further held that the words "may direct" in section 271 confer discretion only on whether to impose penalty, not to reduce it below the statutory minimum fixed by clause (i). The Tribunal therefore had no power to go below the prescribed minimum, and the penalty was sustained. en-us Thu, 21 Dec 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8903 Where a return-filing default occurred under the 1922 Act but penalty proceedings were validly taken under section 297(2)(g) of the 1961 Act, section 271 of the 1961 Act governs the penalty. The Court held that this application does not violate Article 20(1) because the maximum penalty under the 1961 Act is not greater than under the old Act. It further held that the words "may direct" in section 271 confer discretion only on whether to impose penalty, not to reduce it below the statutory minimum fixed by clause (i). The Tribunal therefore had no power to go below the prescribed minimum, and the penalty was sustained. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 21 Dec 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8903