<?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>1978 (3) TMI 79 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38101</link>
    <description>For penalty computation under section 271(1)(a), a registered firm deemed to be an unregistered firm under section 271(2) had to be assessed on the tax payable in that assumed character, and the statutory fiction carried all necessary incidents of that status. The Karnataka HC noted that the annuity deposit under Chapter 22A was allowable as a deduction in computing total income, and the law then in force did not require actual payment of the deposit as a condition for the deduction. The assessee was therefore entitled to that deduction when determining the tax base for penalty purposes, and the Commissioner&#039;s contrary view was erroneous.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Apr 2010 12:04:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=76647" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (3) TMI 79 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38101</link>
      <description>For penalty computation under section 271(1)(a), a registered firm deemed to be an unregistered firm under section 271(2) had to be assessed on the tax payable in that assumed character, and the statutory fiction carried all necessary incidents of that status. The Karnataka HC noted that the annuity deposit under Chapter 22A was allowable as a deduction in computing total income, and the law then in force did not require actual payment of the deposit as a condition for the deduction. The assessee was therefore entitled to that deduction when determining the tax base for penalty purposes, and the Commissioner&#039;s contrary view was erroneous.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38101</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>