The Dcit, Central Circle-2(1),, ... vs Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.,, ... on 26 September, 2017
revenue, that the word "surcharge" has been used in article 271 for the purpose of
separating it from the basic charge
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 1005 (1.80 seconds)The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs T.R.Sabhari Babu on 20 February, 2017
case, the Income Tax Tribunal is right in not considering Article 271 of the Constitution of India which clearly provides for levy of surcharge
Asst Dit (It) 2(2), Mumbai vs Wns Global Services (Uk) Ltd, Mumbai on 28 February, 2017
communication charges amounting to
Rs.3,41,29,271/- was held to be taxable under article 13 of the Act and
DTAA @ 10% on gross ... Particulars Rs.
International telecom connectivity expenses 3,41,29,271
considered as Royalty under Article 13(3)(b) of the
India UK Tax Treaty
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-19 vs Shri Neeraj Jindal on 9 February, 2017
income filed
u/s 139 cannot be considered. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is imposable when there
is variation in assessed and returned income ... article seized. Therefore, the question of adding or not
adding amounts after the search and falling within the mischief of
Explanation 5 to Section 271
Tata Iron And Steel Co. Ltd. vs State Of Bihar . on 15 December, 2017
finds a place in
Article 110(2)8 and 199(2) , which are in pari materia. Both the Articles
6 That the High Court failed ... also violates Article 265 of the Constitution – ground No. XIV of SLP
7 See Articles 265 , 266 , 268 , 269 , 270 , 271 , Entries
Nanasaheb Shankarraogaikwad, Pune vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax,, on 20 January, 2017
original
return of income filed by the assessee. Section 271(1) of the Act makes
provision for levying penalties on assessee in different eventualities ... particulars
of income. Only on fulfillment of the conditions stipulated in section 271(1)(c)
of the Act, there arises a question of exercising power
Anilkumar Rampratap Agrawal (Goyal),, ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 30 March, 2017
view of the provisions
of Explanation of 5A to Sec.271(1)(c) of the Act, assessee was liable
for penalty. He accordingly vide order ... penalty of Rs.1,53,000/- by invoking Explanation 5A to
Sec.271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee
Meghraj Kesaji Chaudhari,, Nashik vs Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 31 October, 2017
circumstances, which also is not clear as to which limb of section 271(1)(c)
of the Act is attracted, stands vitiated and the penalty ... wherein the
retrospective operation of section 271(1B) of the Act was challenged being
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Hon‟ble High
Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life ... vs Jdit (It) Rg 3, Mumbai on 24 May, 2017
assessee fell into the category of
"copyrighted article" against acquisition of "copyright"
which qualified as royalty payment. Furthermore ... Services vs. State of AP 271
ITR 401 (SC) and held that the assessee had acquired a
"copyrighted article
Dcit Cen Cir 20, Mumbai vs Anupama P Jain, Mumbai on 6 October, 2017
this, the A.O.
initiated penalty proceedings. The notice u/s.271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 was served on
the assessee ... section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act refers to only money, bullion,
jewellery or other valuable articles or things. So the Explanation