<?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>1980 (8) TMI 65 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36380</link>
    <description>The court affirmed the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling in favor of the assessee regarding the correct interpretation of section 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It held that the shortfall in advance tax payment should be determined by comparing the tax paid with the rates applicable to the assessment year, not the financial year. The court emphasized that variations in tax rates should be based on the assessment year&#039;s rates, not the financial year&#039;s rates. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:44:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=74926" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (8) TMI 65 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36380</link>
      <description>The court affirmed the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling in favor of the assessee regarding the correct interpretation of section 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It held that the shortfall in advance tax payment should be determined by comparing the tax paid with the rates applicable to the assessment year, not the financial year. The court emphasized that variations in tax rates should be based on the assessment year&#039;s rates, not the financial year&#039;s rates. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36380</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>