<?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>1989 (11) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20555</link>
    <description>Damages for delayed remittance of provident fund dues under section 14B of the Employees&#039; Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act were required to be assessed in light of the Supreme Court&#039;s explanation that &quot;damages&quot; may serve both penal and compensatory purposes. The Tribunal had treated the additional payment as compensation by following earlier authority, but it had not considered the later Supreme Court ruling and had made no finding on whether the amount was wholly penal, wholly compensatory, or partly both. Because the factual basis for that classification was missing, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Nov 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Nov 2009 16:26:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=59554" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (11) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20555</link>
      <description>Damages for delayed remittance of provident fund dues under section 14B of the Employees&#039; Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act were required to be assessed in light of the Supreme Court&#039;s explanation that &quot;damages&quot; may serve both penal and compensatory purposes. The Tribunal had treated the additional payment as compensation by following earlier authority, but it had not considered the later Supreme Court ruling and had made no finding on whether the amount was wholly penal, wholly compensatory, or partly both. Because the factual basis for that classification was missing, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Nov 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20555</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>