<?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 (11) TMI 34 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38589</link>
    <description>A retrospective amendment substituting &quot;assessed tax&quot; for &quot;tax payable&quot; in the penalty provision had to be applied as if always in force. On that basis, the assessee could not escape penalty merely because the tax ultimately payable was lower than the amount originally assessed and paid. The Tribunal was therefore incorrect in deleting the penalty, and the referred question was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Apr 2010 13:53:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=77135" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (11) TMI 34 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38589</link>
      <description>A retrospective amendment substituting &quot;assessed tax&quot; for &quot;tax payable&quot; in the penalty provision had to be applied as if always in force. On that basis, the assessee could not escape penalty merely because the tax ultimately payable was lower than the amount originally assessed and paid. The Tribunal was therefore incorrect in deleting the penalty, and the referred question was answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38589</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>