<?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>1962 (10) TMI 80 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276153</link>
    <description>A penalty for non-compliance with a demand notice could not stand once the notice itself had been cancelled as not being in the proper form. Default arises only in relation to a valid and operative notice of demand, and where the alleged breach is founded on a notice that has ceased to exist, the legal basis for penalty disappears. The penalty order was therefore quashed in favour of the petitioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2018 17:54:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=540214" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (10) TMI 80 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276153</link>
      <description>A penalty for non-compliance with a demand notice could not stand once the notice itself had been cancelled as not being in the proper form. Default arises only in relation to a valid and operative notice of demand, and where the alleged breach is founded on a notice that has ceased to exist, the legal basis for penalty disappears. The penalty order was therefore quashed in favour of the petitioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276153</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>