Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs University Printers on 23 October, 1990

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Smt. Rasila S. Mehta And Smt. Pratima H. ... on 19 February, 2001

7. The learned CIT(A) also considered the judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Calcutta Credit Corporation (1987) 166 ITR 29 (Cal) and of Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Universal Printers (1991) 188 ITR 206 (All) which had been relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessees. The learned CIT(A) found that both the cases were distinguishable on facts. In both the cases the addition made related to cash credits. The assessees had not admitted that the alleged cash credits represented their unaccounted income. The assessees were also able to put across explanations about source of cash credit. On such facts the Hon'ble High Courts held that where two opinions on the same facts were possible or explanation offered by the assessee was rejected, that by itself would not justify imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Asstt. Cit vs Smt. Rasila S. Mehta on 19 February, 2001

7. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) also considered the judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Calcutta Credit Corpn. (1987) 166 ITR 291 (Cal) and of Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. University Printers (1991) 188 ITR 206 (All) which had been relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessees. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) found that both the cases were distinguishable on facts. In both the cases the addition made related to cash credits. The assessees had not admitted that the alleged cash credits represented their unaccounted income. The assessees were also able to put across Explanations about source of cash credit. On such facts the Hon'ble High Courts held that where two opinions on the same facts were possible or Explanation offered by the assessee was rejected, that by itself would not justify imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c).
Bombay High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Parna Industries Ltd.,, Ahmedabad vs Department Of Income Tax

5.1 In respect of levy of penalty on addition on account of cash credits, the assessee pleaded that there must be concrete evidence or circumstances leading to a conclusion that the amount does represent assessee's income and the circumstances must show that there was conscious concealment or act of furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act does not make the assessment order a conclusive evidence so as to establish that the amount assessed is, in fact, the income of the assessee and the assessee relied on the decisions in the case of CIT vs Ramaswamy Naidu (1994) 8 ITA 274/Ahd/2006 208 ITR 377 (Mad); CIT vs University Printers (1991) 188 ITR 206 (Cal); Addl CIT vs Sawan Motor Stores (1977) 109 ITR 660 (AP); CIT vs Shri Bajrang Trading & Supply Co (1991) 187 ITR 299 (Cal); PSS Bommanna Chettiar vs CIT (1969) 73 ITR 26 (Mad),and ITO vs Bombaywala Readymade Stores (2004) 91 ITD 225 (Ahd)(TM).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Swetamber Steel Limited, Baroda vs Assessee on 31 March, 2006

Inter alia, the assessee relied upon the a number of decisions in CIT vs. Ramaswamy Naidu (1994) 208 ITR 377 (Mad),CIT vs. University Printers (1991) 188 ITR 206 (Cal), Additional CIT vs. Sawan Motor Stores (1977) 109 ITR 660 (AP),CIT vs. Shri Bajrang Trading and Supply Company (1991) 187 ITR 299 (Cal) and P.S.S. Bommanna Chettiar vs. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 26 (Mad).The assessee also contended that filing of a miscellaneous 3 ITA No.1531/Ahd/2006 application before the ITAT did not extend limitation period stipulated u/s 275 of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Usha Martin Ltd, Kolkata vs Dcit Cent. Circle-1, Ranchi on 28 June, 2018

• The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has held in the case of CIT vs University Printers 188 ITR 206 (All) that: "merely because the explanation offered by the assessee was rejected, It furnished no ground for levying penalty until and unless it was found that the amount of question constituted the concealed income of the assessee. Since there was no material except the fact that the explanation offered by the assessee was rejected, the Imposition of penalty Is not warranted."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ranchi Cites 27 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax. on 27 June, 1994

yr. 1986-87 a similar addition had been made by the ITO, but penalty proceedings initiated under S. 271(1)(c) were subsequently dropped. As regards asst. yr. 1985-86 the learned counsel stated that penalty proceedings were initiated, but no penalty was levied. On the question of mensrea/mala fide intention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. vs. Asstt. CST (1980) 124 ITR 15 (SC) and that of the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. University Printers (1991) 188 ITR 206 (All). In concluding his arguments the learned counsel urged that the penalty be cancelled.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next