<?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>1982 (8) TMI 14 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28290</link>
    <description>The court upheld the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 25,000 under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1970-71, justifying that the minors were benamidars of the assessee. The court dismissed the jurisdictional argument raised by the assessee, stating it was not raised before the Tribunal. Additionally, the court found that the procedural aspect of the penalty imposition was not raised before the Tribunal and could not be entertained. The decision favored the Revenue, with each party bearing their own costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Aug 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Feb 2010 12:05:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=67288" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (8) TMI 14 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28290</link>
      <description>The court upheld the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 25,000 under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1970-71, justifying that the minors were benamidars of the assessee. The court dismissed the jurisdictional argument raised by the assessee, stating it was not raised before the Tribunal. Additionally, the court found that the procedural aspect of the penalty imposition was not raised before the Tribunal and could not be entertained. The decision favored the Revenue, with each party bearing their own costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Aug 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28290</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>