Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 44 (1.53 seconds)
Documents citing Burmah-Shell Oil Storage And ... vs Income-Tax Officer And Ors. on 3 July, 1975

New Holland Tractors (India) (P) Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer on 21 March, 2003

11.15 A perusal of this decision shows that on the facts before it, the Hon'ble High Court was of the view that the legal contentions raised by the assessee were bona fide. Thus, whether it is ultimately accepted or rejected, it could not be considered generally to be an act of fraud or gross or willful negligence. In the facts of the present case, the bona fide of the assessee after appreciation of the agreement and the case law relied upon by the assessee for justifying the belief that apportioning the receipt has not been accepted. We have noted that in the absence of any clause to the contrary in the said agreement which neither treats the sum received as advance nor is there any clause to show that receipt was contingent on any performance as such there was no possibility where the assessee could have been called upon to refund a portion thereof the explanation of the assessee to justify the rationale for its belief cannot be accepted. As such, the assessee has not been able to establish its bone fides. As such, the general principle laid down in the case of Burma Shell (supra) does not advance the case of the assessee at hand as it has no play in the matrix of the facts of the present case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 80 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Coromandel Indag Products P.Ltd on 31 December, 2002

19. As far as the decision of the Calcutta High Court in BURMAHSHELL OIL STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTING CO. OF INDIA LTD. Vs. I.T.O. (112 I.T.R. 592) is concerned, it has been held that merely because the contention raised by the assessee was ultimately turned down, it cannot be said that the said contention could be characterised as frivolous, dishonest or mala fide. On the other hand it was found by the assessing officer in the penalty proceedings that the claim of the assessee was false and therefore, the decision of the Calcutta High Court referred to above is not applicable to the case on hand.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 6 - K R Pandian - Full Document

Wealth-Tax Officer vs Premchand Jain on 28 February, 1985

The Commissioner (Appeals) has exonerated the assessees on the question of a bona fide belief that there was no includible asset. Substantial evidence has been laid in the quantum appeal to substantiate the existence of an asset and this has been accepted by the assessees in their letter addressed to the AAC. The evidence available in the quantum appeal, according to the learned counsel, was sufficient and good evidence even for the purposes of penalty appeals. The learned counsel referred in this connection the decisions in R.S. Joshi, STO v. Ajit Mills [1977] 40 STC 497 (SC), Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC), Burmah-Shell Oil Storage & Distributing Co. of India Ltd. v. ITO [1978] 112 ITR 592 (Cal.)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Impulse India (P.) Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 29 August, 1991

17. Shri C.S. Aggarwal submitted that the learned CIT (Appeals) had no jurisdiction to initiate the penalty proceedings for concealment of income when no concealment had been discovered by him. It was submitted that there was no enhancement of income by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and that all the facts and circumstances of the case had been gone into by the Assessing Officer who had thought it fit only to reject the claim of the assessee, but not to initiate the penalty proceedings for concealment of income. The learned counsel submitted that the assessee had made a genuine claim and had placed all the cards on the table and that the Assessing Officer had negatived its claim by placing a particular interpretation on Section 80HHC. The learned counsel further submitted that even if the assessee did not claim deduction under Section 80HHC in respect of export agency commission of Rs. 22,27,118, it would have made no difference to the income assessed. It was submitted that the deduction under Section 80HHC had to be restricted to 70 per cent of pre-incentive total income of Rs. 1,18,978 and that even if deduction under Section 80HHC in respect of export agency commission was ignored the deduction allowable and actually allowed worked out to Rs. 95,435 which had to be restricted to Rs. 83,284 as was done by the assessee itself. According to the learned counsel there was no motive to conceal any income or to lodge a false claim and Explanations to Section 271 (1 )(c) were not applicable in the instant case. Reliance was placed on the Calcutta High Court decision inBurmah Shell Oil Storage & Distributing Co. of India Ltd. v. ITO [1978] 112 ITR 592 for the proposition that a mere rejection of a claim did not give rise to concealment of income.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Geo Sea Foods vs Income-Tax Officer on 22 January, 1991

It is in this background that the Appellate Tribunal found in the quantum appeal that the payment should be regarded as an indirect payment to the partners attracting disallowance under Section 40(b). On a narration of the above facts it was clear that there was no furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income and the point at issue was only an inference that could be drawn on the disputed facts as to whether the payment could betaken to be to that of an independent entity, viz., the company or an indirect payment to the partners of the assessee-firm. Moreover, these observations had been disputed by the assessee throughout and had been taken up to the High Court on a reference. It has been held by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Burmah-Shell Oil Storage &Distributing Co. of India Ltd. v. ITO [1978] 112ITR 592 that there could be no concealment in a case where on admitted facts the assessee disputes the liability to tax on legal contentions. It has been held in that case that the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) could not also apply because when legal contentions are bona fide raised whether ultimately accepted or rejected will not generally be an act of fraud or gross or wilful negligence.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cochin Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Kalyani Enterprises vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 29 September, 2000

In the case of Burmah-Shell Oil Storage & Distributing Co. of India Ltd. v. ITO [1978] 112 ITR 592, the Calcutta High Court held that the assessee's claim for a deduction based on certain legal contentions could not be treated as a case of concealment of income within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c). Whether the said contentions were ultimately upheld or turned down it could not be said that the said contentions were frivolous, dishonest or mala fide. The rejection of the contentions raised by the assessee could not lead to the contention that there had been any concealment of the particulars of income or that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. Having regard to the facts of the present case and the judicial decisions on the subject of concealment of income, we do not think that the Assessing Officer was justified in levying the penalty on the ground that by making the claim for the allowance of depreciation on the vehicle purchased on 30-3-1989 and running for the assessee's purpose, it was making a false claim of depreciation. We thus find that the CIT(A) was not correct in upholding the levy of penalty in this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Madras Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next