Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.39 seconds)
Documents citing Nemichand Ganeshmal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 24 July, 1978

Income Tax Officer vs Yugal Vijayvargiya. on 19 July, 1996

This view was also taken by the Honble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Nemichand Ganeshmal vs. CIT (supra), in which their Lordships have held that the imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act for the delay in filing the return is legal even where the interest is charged under cl. (iii) of proviso to s. 139(1) of the Act and even where the assessee filed the return within the time allowed under the provisions of s. 139(4) of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Income Tax Officer vs Yugal Vijayvargiya on 19 July, 1996

This view was also taken by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Nemichand Ganeshmal vs. CIT (supra), in which their Lordships have held that the imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act for the delay in filing the return is legal even where the interest is charged under cl. (iii) of proviso to s. 139(1) of the Act and even where the assessee filed the return within the time allowed under the provisions of s. 139(4) of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajjan Lal Misra vs Income-Tax Officer on 15 January, 1988

(FB) and Nemichand Ganeshmal v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 438 (MP). The departmental representative further contended before us that the legal advice was available to the assessee and on receipt of second valuation report, he should have filed the return as per legal advice available to him. It was next contended that the exemption limit of Rs. 1,00,000 was not available to the assessee because he was running a hotel and the exemption was only available in regard to the residential building.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

H.H. Maharani Sharmishthabai Holkar vs Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 22 August, 1980

In Nemichand Ganeshmal v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 438, a Division Bench of this court held that mens rea or guilty intent was not a necessary ingredient of the penalty provision contained in Section 271(1)(a) of the Act. We, respectfully agree with the view taken in that decision. There is no material difference in the language of Section 271(1)(a) and Section 273(c) of the Act, so far as this aspect of the question is concerned. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in holding, in our opinion, that the element of mens rea was not required to be taken into consideration while imposing penalty under Section 273(c) of the Act.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1