<?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>1998 (4) TMI 115 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16682</link>
    <description>Penalty for an alleged untrue advance-tax estimate could not be sustained where the assessee&#039;s interest liability under section 215 was partly waived under rules 40 and 117A of the Income-tax Rules. The Court accepted the Tribunal&#039;s view that, once the interest component had been waived on that footing, the authorities lacked competence to uphold penalty under section 273(2)(a) or section 273(2)(aa) on the same basis. The decision was therefore against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 13:42:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=55682" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (4) TMI 115 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16682</link>
      <description>Penalty for an alleged untrue advance-tax estimate could not be sustained where the assessee&#039;s interest liability under section 215 was partly waived under rules 40 and 117A of the Income-tax Rules. The Court accepted the Tribunal&#039;s view that, once the interest component had been waived on that footing, the authorities lacked competence to uphold penalty under section 273(2)(a) or section 273(2)(aa) on the same basis. The decision was therefore against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16682</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>