Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.05 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Sunil Kumar Goel on 19 January, 2005

Navin Kumar vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 17 November, 2005

19. The learned JM after taking note of the provisions of Section 269SS further noted that validity of such provisions was upheld by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Asstt. Director of Inspection (Inv.) v. Kum. A.B. Shanthi and Ors. . A part of observations of their Lordships of Supreme Court are extracted by the learned JM in paras 16,17 and 19 of his proposed order. The learned JM also noted the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Suml Kumar Goel . On the basis of above decisions, the learned JM observed that neither the plea of the assessee that he did not (have) knowledge (of) the law nor deletion of the penalty on this ground by the learned AM could be accepted/agreed to by him. Such plea was rejected.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 31 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Navin Kumar vs Jt. Cit on 17 November, 2005

The learned JM also noted the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunil Kumar Goel (2005) 274 ITR 53 (P & H). On the basis of above decisions, the learned Judicial Member observed that neither the plea of the assessee that he did not (have) knowledge (of) the law nor deletion of the penalty on this ground by the learned Accountant Member could be accepted/agreed to by him. Such plea was rejected.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 31 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Navin Kumar & Ashu Bagla vs Jt. Cit on 17 November, 2005

19. The learned Judicial Member after taking note of the provisions of section 269SS further noted that validity of such provisions was upheld by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Director of Inspection (Inv.) v. Kum A.B. Shanthi (2002) 255 ITR 258 (SC). A part of observations of Their Lordships of Supreme Court are extracted by the learned Judicial Member in paras 16,17 and 19 of his proposed order. The learned Judicial Member also noted the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Sunil Kumar Goel (2005) 274 ITR 53 (P&H). On the basis of above decisions, the learned Judicial Member observed that neither the plea of the assessee that he did not has knowledge of the law nor deletion of the penalty on this ground by the learned Accountant Member could be accepted/agreed to by him. Such plea was rejected.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Navin Kumar S/O Shri Sohan Lal vs The Jt. C.I.T. [Alongwith I.T.A. Nos. ... on 16 May, 2005

20. In view of above noted decisions and discussion as held above, the provision being harshest of all other penalty provisions under the Income Tax Act as pleaded by the assessee and noted in the proposed order by learned A.M. cannot be a ground to take the assessee out of the sweep of the provision when such provision has already been held to be valid by the court none other than Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, therefore, in my considered view until a reasonable cause is pleaded and substantiated by producing/adducing material/ evidence, the assessee cannot be exonerated from levy of penalty. As regards plea of having no knowledge of the provision taken by the assessee and its acceptance by teamed A. M. in the draft proposed signed order of learned A. M. is concerned, it would be imperative to mention that similar issue came up for consideration in the case titled CIT v. Sunil Kumar Goel in which CIT has prayed for determination of the following question of law in appeal under Section 260A before Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1