https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27576 The court held that the jurisdiction to impose a penalty under section 271(1)(c) rested with the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, emphasizing that the law applicable at the time of the decision to impose the penalty determines jurisdiction. The court also ruled that the penalty order was not barred by limitation, affirming the procedural nature of limitation laws. The judgment clarified the principles governing penalty imposition under tax laws, emphasizing adherence to prevailing laws at the initiation of penalty proceedings and the procedural aspect of limitation laws in tax matters. en-us Mon, 12 Mar 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 13 Feb 2010 16:55:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27576 The court held that the jurisdiction to impose a penalty under section 271(1)(c) rested with the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, emphasizing that the law applicable at the time of the decision to impose the penalty determines jurisdiction. The court also ruled that the penalty order was not barred by limitation, affirming the procedural nature of limitation laws. The judgment clarified the principles governing penalty imposition under tax laws, emphasizing adherence to prevailing laws at the initiation of penalty proceedings and the procedural aspect of limitation laws in tax matters. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 12 Mar 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27576