<?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 (3) TMI 45 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27950</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 271(1)(a) was attracted where an assessment initially made on a protective basis had, in substance, become a substantive assessment because no other person was assessed on that income. The court also found that the assessee failed to establish reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return, which supported the levy of penalty. The first referred question was not pressed and remained unanswered, while the surviving issue was decided against the assessee and in favour of the Department.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Mar 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:41:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=66948" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (3) TMI 45 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27950</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 271(1)(a) was attracted where an assessment initially made on a protective basis had, in substance, become a substantive assessment because no other person was assessed on that income. The court also found that the assessee failed to establish reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return, which supported the levy of penalty. The first referred question was not pressed and remained unanswered, while the surviving issue was decided against the assessee and in favour of the Department.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Mar 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27950</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>