<?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>1995 (8) TMI 38 - PATNA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18821</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act for belated filing of returns by a deceased assessee&#039;s legal representative was not sustainable where the same issue on identical facts had already been decided by the same court. Applying that earlier ruling, the court rejected the levy upheld by the Tribunal and answered the reference against the Revenue. The result was that the penalties for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 19 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:13:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=57820" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (8) TMI 38 - PATNA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18821</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act for belated filing of returns by a deceased assessee&#039;s legal representative was not sustainable where the same issue on identical facts had already been decided by the same court. Applying that earlier ruling, the court rejected the levy upheld by the Tribunal and answered the reference against the Revenue. The result was that the penalties for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73 could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 19 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18821</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>