https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26870 The court ruled in favor of the assessee, determining that there was no delay of one month in filing the return under section 18(1)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. As the return was received within a month, not after a completed month, the penalty imposition was deemed unjustified. The court emphasized interpreting the term "month" in alignment with the English calendar month as defined in the General Clauses Act, rejecting the notion of a month as a period of thirty days for penalty purposes. en-us Fri, 19 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Feb 2010 10:30:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26870 The court ruled in favor of the assessee, determining that there was no delay of one month in filing the return under section 18(1)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. As the return was received within a month, not after a completed month, the penalty imposition was deemed unjustified. The court emphasized interpreting the term "month" in alignment with the English calendar month as defined in the General Clauses Act, rejecting the notion of a month as a period of thirty days for penalty purposes. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Fri, 19 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26870