https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55866 The appeal challenging the penalty imposed under s. 271(1)(a) by the AAC was dismissed. The penalty, initially set at Rs. 6,600 by the ITO for late filing of the return, was upheld at Rs. 5,540 by the AAC. The appellant's argument to restrict the penalty to 50% of the tax of the registered firm, citing CIT vs. R. Ochhavlal, was rejected. The ITAT upheld the AAC's order, finding no reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return and dismissing the appellant's interpretation of penalty calculation under s. 271(1). en-us Sat, 26 May 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:35:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55866 The appeal challenging the penalty imposed under s. 271(1)(a) by the AAC was dismissed. The penalty, initially set at Rs. 6,600 by the ITO for late filing of the return, was upheld at Rs. 5,540 by the AAC. The appellant's argument to restrict the penalty to 50% of the tax of the registered firm, citing CIT vs. R. Ochhavlal, was rejected. The ITAT upheld the AAC's order, finding no reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return and dismissing the appellant's interpretation of penalty calculation under s. 271(1). Case-Laws Income Tax Sat, 26 May 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55866