<?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>1976 (8) TMI 26 - PATNA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38434</link>
    <description>The court upheld the penalty imposed on the petitioner for failing to furnish the estimate of advance tax, finding no reasonable cause for the default. It determined that the notice under section 210 of the Income-tax Act was valid despite lacking the Income-tax Officer&#039;s signature. The court also concluded that the principles of natural justice were not violated, as the petitioner had a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The application was dismissed, and the penalty was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Aug 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Apr 2010 11:55:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=76980" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (8) TMI 26 - PATNA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38434</link>
      <description>The court upheld the penalty imposed on the petitioner for failing to furnish the estimate of advance tax, finding no reasonable cause for the default. It determined that the notice under section 210 of the Income-tax Act was valid despite lacking the Income-tax Officer&#039;s signature. The court also concluded that the principles of natural justice were not violated, as the petitioner had a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The application was dismissed, and the penalty was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Aug 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38434</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>