<?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 (1) TMI 39 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12717</link>
    <description>An amnesty scheme remained available even after notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, because the governing instruction extended the scheme&#039;s benefit notwithstanding prior notices under section 139(2) or section 148. On that basis, the petitioners&#039; filings were treated as covered by the scheme, and the alleged default could not support prosecution under section 276CC. The order framing charge was quashed, with the petitions allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 May 2009 13:59:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=51728" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (1) TMI 39 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12717</link>
      <description>An amnesty scheme remained available even after notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, because the governing instruction extended the scheme&#039;s benefit notwithstanding prior notices under section 139(2) or section 148. On that basis, the petitioners&#039; filings were treated as covered by the scheme, and the alleged default could not support prosecution under section 276CC. The order framing charge was quashed, with the petitions allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12717</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>