<?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>1996 (2) TMI 73 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18284</link>
    <description>Penalties for delayed filing could not be sustained where the returns were filed beyond the prescribed time and were treated as invalid in law. Once the purported returns were not returns in the eye of law, they could not furnish a lawful for penalty under section 271(1)(a). The cancellation of the penalties was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:34:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=57284" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (2) TMI 73 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18284</link>
      <description>Penalties for delayed filing could not be sustained where the returns were filed beyond the prescribed time and were treated as invalid in law. Once the purported returns were not returns in the eye of law, they could not furnish a lawful for penalty under section 271(1)(a). The cancellation of the penalties was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18284</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>