<?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>1987 (11) TMI 41 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25013</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the assessee, determining that penalty proceedings under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, cannot be initiated against a legal representative, as section 18 is not encompassed within section 19(3). Consequently, the second issue regarding mens rea and good faith filing became moot. The court instructed the Appellate Tribunal to eliminate the penalty entirely and awarded costs of Rs. 200 to the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Dec 2024 14:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=64011" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (11) TMI 41 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25013</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the assessee, determining that penalty proceedings under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, cannot be initiated against a legal representative, as section 18 is not encompassed within section 19(3). Consequently, the second issue regarding mens rea and good faith filing became moot. The court instructed the Appellate Tribunal to eliminate the penalty entirely and awarded costs of Rs. 200 to the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25013</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>