https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25497 The High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, determining that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had valid jurisdiction to impose a penalty under section 271(1)(c) before the amendment came into effect. The court clarified that the jurisdiction was established when the Income-tax Officer found concealed income exceeding Rs. 25,000, prior to the legislative change. The court also affirmed that procedural laws do not affect substantive rights or forums unless explicitly stated, maintaining the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner's jurisdiction despite the amendment. en-us Thu, 14 Aug 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:06:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25497 The High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, determining that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had valid jurisdiction to impose a penalty under section 271(1)(c) before the amendment came into effect. The court clarified that the jurisdiction was established when the Income-tax Officer found concealed income exceeding Rs. 25,000, prior to the legislative change. The court also affirmed that procedural laws do not affect substantive rights or forums unless explicitly stated, maintaining the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner's jurisdiction despite the amendment. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 14 Aug 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25497