<?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>2005 (3) TMI 102 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13743</link>
    <description>The Judge dismissed the petition challenging the rejection of the application for waiver of penalty under section 273A of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1990-91. The Commissioner of Income-tax rejected the application citing the petitioner&#039;s failure to meet the necessary conditions for waiver. The petitioner&#039;s argument that the rejection was based on the non-filing of an appeal against the penalty order was refuted by the Judge, who noted that the waiver claim was decided on its merits. The Judge emphasized the lack of cooperation with the Department and upheld the penalty imposition due to insufficient evidence provided by the petitioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:06:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=52751" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 102 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13743</link>
      <description>The Judge dismissed the petition challenging the rejection of the application for waiver of penalty under section 273A of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1990-91. The Commissioner of Income-tax rejected the application citing the petitioner&#039;s failure to meet the necessary conditions for waiver. The petitioner&#039;s argument that the rejection was based on the non-filing of an appeal against the penalty order was refuted by the Judge, who noted that the waiver claim was decided on its merits. The Judge emphasized the lack of cooperation with the Department and upheld the penalty imposition due to insufficient evidence provided by the petitioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=13743</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>