https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25313 A subsequent regrouping and renumbering of the advance tax provisions did not affect liability for penalty for failure to furnish an estimate, because the substantive obligation and penal consequence remained unchanged. The court treated the governing law as the law in force on 1 April 1976, or at least the law applicable when the default was committed. Section 212(3) was renumbered as section 209A(1) and section 273(b) as section 273(1)(b), but that formal change did not curtail the power to levy penalty. The penalty was therefore sustained and the question was answered for the Revenue. en-us Wed, 22 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:16:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25313 A subsequent regrouping and renumbering of the advance tax provisions did not affect liability for penalty for failure to furnish an estimate, because the substantive obligation and penal consequence remained unchanged. The court treated the governing law as the law in force on 1 April 1976, or at least the law applicable when the default was committed. Section 212(3) was renumbered as section 209A(1) and section 273(b) as section 273(1)(b), but that formal change did not curtail the power to levy penalty. The penalty was therefore sustained and the question was answered for the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 22 Jul 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25313