<?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 (9) TMI 32 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28610</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the cancellation of penalty imposed on an HUF under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, reasoning that the HUF had ceased to exist before the penalty order. Section 171(8) explicitly applies to the levy and collection of penalties in such cases. The Department&#039;s belated invocation of section 171(8) in an application under sections 256(1) and 256(2) was deemed acceptable by the Court, awarding costs to the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Sep 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:15:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=67607" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (9) TMI 32 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28610</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the cancellation of penalty imposed on an HUF under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, reasoning that the HUF had ceased to exist before the penalty order. Section 171(8) explicitly applies to the levy and collection of penalties in such cases. The Department&#039;s belated invocation of section 171(8) in an application under sections 256(1) and 256(2) was deemed acceptable by the Court, awarding costs to the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Sep 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28610</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>