<?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 (3) TMI 47 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29374</link>
    <description>The High Court held that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to impose a penalty under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act after the amendment of section 18(3) with effect from April 1, 1976. The Court emphasized the necessity of a valid reference by the Wealth Tax Officer to the Income-tax Appellate Commissioner for penalty imposition. As the reference in this case occurred after the effective date of the amendment, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, concluding that the IAC lacked jurisdiction post-amendment. The Court did not address the second question raised by the Tribunal, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:56:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=68371" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (3) TMI 47 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29374</link>
      <description>The High Court held that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to impose a penalty under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act after the amendment of section 18(3) with effect from April 1, 1976. The Court emphasized the necessity of a valid reference by the Wealth Tax Officer to the Income-tax Appellate Commissioner for penalty imposition. As the reference in this case occurred after the effective date of the amendment, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, concluding that the IAC lacked jurisdiction post-amendment. The Court did not address the second question raised by the Tribunal, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29374</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>