<?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>1994 (11) TMI 64 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19345</link>
    <description>Quashing of the penalty order did not bar prosecution under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act where the complaint alleged wilful attempt to evade tax and filing of false particulars. Setting aside the penalty order did not annul the assessment or destroy the factual basis of the complaint, and section 276C operates without prejudice to penalty otherwise imposable. The criminal complaint was therefore maintainable, and the request to quash it failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:00:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=58344" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (11) TMI 64 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19345</link>
      <description>Quashing of the penalty order did not bar prosecution under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act where the complaint alleged wilful attempt to evade tax and filing of false particulars. Setting aside the penalty order did not annul the assessment or destroy the factual basis of the complaint, and section 276C operates without prejudice to penalty otherwise imposable. The criminal complaint was therefore maintainable, and the request to quash it failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19345</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>