<?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>1957 (9) TMI 72 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199483</link>
    <description>For penalty under the Income Tax Act, 1922, the requisite statutory satisfaction must be formed during the assessment proceedings themselves, and a contemporaneous assessment record noting clear default was sufficient to meet that timing requirement. The later date of the penalty order did not invalidate the satisfaction already recorded. On notice and hearing, the assessee&#039;s own letters acknowledging receipt of notice under the penalty provision and asking for time to explain showed that notice had been served and an opportunity to respond was available. The challenge to penalty on both grounds therefore failed, and the penalty order as reduced in revision was left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Sep 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2018 14:48:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=511120" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1957 (9) TMI 72 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199483</link>
      <description>For penalty under the Income Tax Act, 1922, the requisite statutory satisfaction must be formed during the assessment proceedings themselves, and a contemporaneous assessment record noting clear default was sufficient to meet that timing requirement. The later date of the penalty order did not invalidate the satisfaction already recorded. On notice and hearing, the assessee&#039;s own letters acknowledging receipt of notice under the penalty provision and asking for time to explain showed that notice had been served and an opportunity to respond was available. The challenge to penalty on both grounds therefore failed, and the penalty order as reduced in revision was left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Sep 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199483</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>