<?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>2002 (8) TMI 17 - RAJASTHAN High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11583</link>
    <description>Cancellation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was sustained because the assessee&#039;s explanation for the default was found plausible and bona fide on the material on record. The High Court treated that conclusion as a finding of fact, not open to interference in reference jurisdiction, and held that no referable question of law arose from the Tribunal&#039;s order. The penalty cancellation was therefore upheld and the reference application was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=50597" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (8) TMI 17 - RAJASTHAN High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11583</link>
      <description>Cancellation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was sustained because the assessee&#039;s explanation for the default was found plausible and bona fide on the material on record. The High Court treated that conclusion as a finding of fact, not open to interference in reference jurisdiction, and held that no referable question of law arose from the Tribunal&#039;s order. The penalty cancellation was therefore upheld and the reference application was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11583</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>