<?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 (2) TMI 70 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12736</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act must follow the net wealth as finally determined in the fresh quantum assessment. Where the assessment was restored for re-determination of the value of unquoted equity shares on the yield method, the penalty could not remain fixed independently of that reassessment. Recalculation of the penalty in line with the fresh assessment was therefore correct in law and was upheld in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 May 2009 16:41:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=51747" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (2) TMI 70 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12736</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act must follow the net wealth as finally determined in the fresh quantum assessment. Where the assessment was restored for re-determination of the value of unquoted equity shares on the yield method, the penalty could not remain fixed independently of that reassessment. Recalculation of the penalty in line with the fresh assessment was therefore correct in law and was upheld in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12736</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>