<?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 (10) TMI 1 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348846</link>
    <description>The court upheld the decision to allow the revision of the proprietorship&#039;s return and directed reassessment based on the revised return. It also reduced the penalty amount for the partnership firm due to the belated confession and request for revision. The court emphasized that penalties should be proportionate to the offense committed and dismissed the appeals challenging the assessment and penalty proceedings against both the proprietorship and partnership firm.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Sep 2018 15:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=491100" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 1 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348846</link>
      <description>The court upheld the decision to allow the revision of the proprietorship&#039;s return and directed reassessment based on the revised return. It also reduced the penalty amount for the partnership firm due to the belated confession and request for revision. The court emphasized that penalties should be proportionate to the offense committed and dismissed the appeals challenging the assessment and penalty proceedings against both the proprietorship and partnership firm.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348846</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>