<?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>1990 (3) TMI 26 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23321</link>
    <description>The court held that filing wealth-tax returns under Section 15 does not exempt petitioners from penal liability under Section 35B. The initiation of penalty proceedings does not bar criminal prosecution, which can proceed independently. The determination of wilful default is a factual issue for trial, with prima facie evidence supporting wilful default by the petitioners. The court dismissed the criminal revision petitions, directing the trial court to proceed as per the law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:03:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=62320" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (3) TMI 26 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23321</link>
      <description>The court held that filing wealth-tax returns under Section 15 does not exempt petitioners from penal liability under Section 35B. The initiation of penalty proceedings does not bar criminal prosecution, which can proceed independently. The determination of wilful default is a factual issue for trial, with prima facie evidence supporting wilful default by the petitioners. The court dismissed the criminal revision petitions, directing the trial court to proceed as per the law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23321</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>