<?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>1983 (9) TMI 45 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27825</link>
    <description>Statutory immunity under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act was conditioned on strict compliance with section 5 payment requirements. Where the declarant neither paid wealth-tax before filing the declaration nor obtained permission for deferred payment or instalments, later payment in two instalments did not satisfy the prescribed procedure. The amended section 15(5A) applied retrospectively and required simple interest on the unpaid amount from 1 April 1976 until actual payment as a condition for immunity under section 15(1). The demand for interest was therefore valid, and compliance with the statutory payment mechanism was mandatory.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Sep 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:53:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=66823" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (9) TMI 45 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27825</link>
      <description>Statutory immunity under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act was conditioned on strict compliance with section 5 payment requirements. Where the declarant neither paid wealth-tax before filing the declaration nor obtained permission for deferred payment or instalments, later payment in two instalments did not satisfy the prescribed procedure. The amended section 15(5A) applied retrospectively and required simple interest on the unpaid amount from 1 April 1976 until actual payment as a condition for immunity under section 15(1). The demand for interest was therefore valid, and compliance with the statutory payment mechanism was mandatory.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Sep 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27825</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>