Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter

Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review

The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.

• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required


Step 2 – Draft Generation

Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.

• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review.

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1983 (12) TMI 23

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rta of Purshottam Thackersey (HUF) and was liable to file the return of wealth-tax under s. 14 of the Act. The petitioner was liable to pay wealth-tax from the assessment years 1967-68 onwards and the wealth return was to be filed for each of the assessment years before June 30. The petitioner filed the wealth-tax returns for the assessment years 1967-68, 1968-69 and 1969-70 on August 6, 1970, while the wealth-tax return for the assessment year 1970-71 was filed on January 1, 1972. After the assessment was completed, the WTO commenced penalty proceedings under s. 18(1)(a) of the Act for delay in filing the returns. Notices were served upon the petitioner, but the assessee failed to appear before the WTO, and ultimately on February 2, 1979, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n. Shri Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the assessee had preferred an appeal against the order of imposition of penalty under s. 18(1)(c) of the Act before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the same was allowed by order dated September 15, 1983, in respect of the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71, and the penalty imposed under s. 18(1)(c) was set aside. Shri Ganesh submits that the assessee desires to challenge the penalty imposed for the assessment year 1968-69 in this petition, but I decline permission to the learned counsel to agitate the issue, because the appeal preferred by the assessee in respect of that assessment order is pending before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sable on a person under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 18 for failure without reasonable cause to furnish the return of net wealth which such person was required to furnish under subsection (1) of section 14, or (ii) reduce or waive the amount of penalty imposed or imposable on a person under clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 18, if he is satisfied that such person, (a) in the case referred to in clause (i), has, prior to the issue of notice to him under subsection (2) of section 14, voluntarily and in good faith, made full and true disclosure of his net wealth, and (b) in the case referred to in clause (ii), has, prior to the detection by the Wealth-tax Officer, of the concealment of particulars of assets or of ....