<?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>2004 (3) TMI 30 - PATNA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10936</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the writ application seeking to quash the order rejecting waiver of penalty and interest under section 273A of the Income-tax Act. The court found that the rejection was justified based on the lack of full and true disclosure post-detection of concealment and the finality of the penalty order upheld by the appellate authority. Despite acknowledging a technical flaw in the jurisdictional aspect, the court upheld the rejection on the merits of the case, emphasizing that interference is only warranted if findings are unreasonable or in violation of statutory provisions, which was not the situation in this case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=49955" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (3) TMI 30 - PATNA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10936</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the writ application seeking to quash the order rejecting waiver of penalty and interest under section 273A of the Income-tax Act. The court found that the rejection was justified based on the lack of full and true disclosure post-detection of concealment and the finality of the penalty order upheld by the appellate authority. Despite acknowledging a technical flaw in the jurisdictional aspect, the court upheld the rejection on the merits of the case, emphasizing that interference is only warranted if findings are unreasonable or in violation of statutory provisions, which was not the situation in this case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10936</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>