https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27338 The court dismissed the petition challenging penalty orders under income tax laws for procedural irregularity in utilizing writ jurisdiction without availing the alternative remedy under s. 256 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Despite the petitioner's contentions regarding jurisdiction and procedural correctness, the court emphasized the ITO's order as the basis for penalty proceedings and the legal distinction post-amendment to s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The court found the petitioner's admission of the loan transaction crucial, emphasizing the importance of proper legal procedures and documentary evidence in tax penalty cases. en-us Tue, 22 May 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Feb 2010 12:04:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27338 The court dismissed the petition challenging penalty orders under income tax laws for procedural irregularity in utilizing writ jurisdiction without availing the alternative remedy under s. 256 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Despite the petitioner's contentions regarding jurisdiction and procedural correctness, the court emphasized the ITO's order as the basis for penalty proceedings and the legal distinction post-amendment to s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The court found the petitioner's admission of the loan transaction crucial, emphasizing the importance of proper legal procedures and documentary evidence in tax penalty cases. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 22 May 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27338