<?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>1984 (12) TMI 10 - PATNA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26097</link>
    <description>The court upheld the penalty imposition under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, as the assessee failed to provide a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return of net wealth. Additionally, the court found the penalty amount of Rs. 4,644 for two months to be within jurisdiction, dismissing the assessee&#039;s argument for a reduced penalty of one month. The Department prevailed in both issues, affirming the justification for the penalty based on the factual findings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:09:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=65095" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (12) TMI 10 - PATNA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26097</link>
      <description>The court upheld the penalty imposition under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, as the assessee failed to provide a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return of net wealth. Additionally, the court found the penalty amount of Rs. 4,644 for two months to be within jurisdiction, dismissing the assessee&#039;s argument for a reduced penalty of one month. The Department prevailed in both issues, affirming the justification for the penalty based on the factual findings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26097</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>