<?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>1997 (9) TMI 95 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17334</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the public limited company, holding that it should not be subjected to additional tax under section 143(1A) of the Income-tax Act. The court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, emphasizing that the retrospective amendment imposing additional tax was unfair and unjust in this case. It concluded that the company could not have foreseen the retrospective tax liability and should not be penalized for a law that came into effect after filing the return.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:12:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=56334" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (9) TMI 95 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17334</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the public limited company, holding that it should not be subjected to additional tax under section 143(1A) of the Income-tax Act. The court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, emphasizing that the retrospective amendment imposing additional tax was unfair and unjust in this case. It concluded that the company could not have foreseen the retrospective tax liability and should not be penalized for a law that came into effect after filing the return.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17334</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>