https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28764 The court held that section 18(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, was procedural in nature. The Wealth-tax Officer (WTO) had the jurisdiction to impose penalties without prior approval from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) after the amendment in 1964. The court ruled in favor of the Department, stating that the amendment eliminated the requirement for prior approval for penalties imposed after April 1, 1965. Each party was directed to bear its own costs. en-us Mon, 09 Aug 1982 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:15:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28764 The court held that section 18(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, was procedural in nature. The Wealth-tax Officer (WTO) had the jurisdiction to impose penalties without prior approval from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) after the amendment in 1964. The court ruled in favor of the Department, stating that the amendment eliminated the requirement for prior approval for penalties imposed after April 1, 1965. Each party was directed to bear its own costs. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Mon, 09 Aug 1982 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28764