<?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>1953 (7) TMI 15 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272752</link>
    <description>A registered firm may be subjected to penalty under Section 28(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, even though it is not separately assessable to income-tax or super-tax. The phrase &quot;if any&quot; in the closing part of Section 28(1) was treated as qualifying liability to tax itself, not merely super-tax, so penalty could still arise where no assessable income was ultimately found. Clause (b) of the proviso was read as limiting the quantum of penalty in cases without assessable income, while clause (d) was viewed as supplying the method of computation for a registered firm rather than creating the liability. The question was answered in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 1953 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 May 2018 16:15:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=520541" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1953 (7) TMI 15 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272752</link>
      <description>A registered firm may be subjected to penalty under Section 28(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, even though it is not separately assessable to income-tax or super-tax. The phrase &quot;if any&quot; in the closing part of Section 28(1) was treated as qualifying liability to tax itself, not merely super-tax, so penalty could still arise where no assessable income was ultimately found. Clause (b) of the proviso was read as limiting the quantum of penalty in cases without assessable income, while clause (d) was viewed as supplying the method of computation for a registered firm rather than creating the liability. The question was answered in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Jul 1953 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272752</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>