<?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>1984 (7) TMI 112 - ITAT BOMBAY-C</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58764</link>
    <description>Penalty under section 10 of the Compulsory Deposit Scheme (Income-tax Payers) Act, 1974 was treated as unsustainable for a one-day delay in the first year because the default was merely technical and the full amount had been deposited. For the second year, where there was no shortfall in quantum but the deposit was delayed by 11 days without satisfactory explanation, the penalty was held to be sustainable only in a limited form and was reduced to a nominal amount.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Dec 2010 18:26:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=97220" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (7) TMI 112 - ITAT BOMBAY-C</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58764</link>
      <description>Penalty under section 10 of the Compulsory Deposit Scheme (Income-tax Payers) Act, 1974 was treated as unsustainable for a one-day delay in the first year because the default was merely technical and the full amount had been deposited. For the second year, where there was no shortfall in quantum but the deposit was delayed by 11 days without satisfactory explanation, the penalty was held to be sustainable only in a limited form and was reduced to a nominal amount.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58764</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>