Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.91 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Vikas Promoters (P) Ltd. on 7 January, 2005

M.Sajjanraj Nahar vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 1 February, 2006

For this reason and in the light of the law enunciated in various decisions of this Court, referred supra, with respect, we are unable to agree with the views expressed by the Delhi High Court in (a) Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd, [2000] 246 ITR 568; (b) Diwan Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Others, [2000] 246 ITR 571; and (c) CIT Vs. Vikas Promoters P. Ltd., [2005] 277 ITR 337.
Madras High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

Income Tax Officer vs Rakesh Gupta on 18 January, 2007

6. I have heard both the parties and carefully considered the rival submissions with reference to facts, evidence and material on record. I have also gone through the order of the CIT(A). Section 271(1)(c) of the Act provides for initiation of penalty proceedings. Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 271 provides that if the AO or the CIT(A) or the CIT in the course of any proceedings under this Act is satisfied that any person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty as specified in Clause (iii) of Section 271(1) of the Act. Thus, recording of satisfaction in the assessment order is mandatory requirement of law for initiation of penalty proceedings. If the satisfaction is not recorded by the AO in the assessment order it would mean that the proceedings initiated under this section are not valid and without jurisdiction. The recording of satisfaction means that the assessment order must apparently show that there was an application of mind by the AO. The application of mind can only be gathered by the reasons stated in the assessment order. This view finds support from the judgments of Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Bhagwant Finance Co. Ltd. v. CIT (supra), CIT v. Auto Lamps Ltd. (Del), CIT v. Vikas Promoters (P) Ltd. (supra), CIT v. Super Metal Re-rollers (supra), Diwan Enterprises v. CIT (supra), CIT v. B.R. Sharma and CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (supra).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 22 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

British Airways Plc. vs Deputy Director Of Income Tax on 23 November, 2007

He also relied on the other decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT v. Vikas Promoters (P) Ltd. , CIT v. Auto Uimps Ltd. , CIT v. B.R. Sharma and CIT v. Globe Sales Corporation (2005) 196 CTR (Del) 187 : (2005) 145 Taxman 530 (Del) wherein the view taken in the case of Ram Commercial Enterprises (supra) was reiterated by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 13 January, 2006

Thus the assessee was under a bona fide belief that the interest and miscellaneous income was assessed to tax as business income of the assessee, the same was out of the conduct of the industrial undertaking and, therefore, eligible for deduction under Section 80-I of the Act. Moreover, we find that while disallowing the claim of the assessee under Section 80-I. on the interest and miscellaneous income the AO has not recorded any satisfaction in the assessment order to the effect that there was filing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee or concealment of income. At the end of the assessment order, the learned AO has simply noted that "penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) have been initiated separately." The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Vikas Promoters (P) Ltd. (2005) 194 CTR (Del) 384 held that "their Lordships of the Supreme court have repeatedly emphasized the word "satisfaction" and the satisfaction is not to be in the mind of the AO but must be reflected from the record. It is a settled rule of law that the authority performing quasi-judicial or judicial function must give reasons in support of its order so as to provide in the order itself the ground which weigh with the authority concerned for passing an order adverse to the interest of the assessee. Furthermore, the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) are penal in nature thus must be strictly construed; the element of satisfaction should be apparent from the order itself. It is not for the Courts to go into the minds of the authorities or towards the reasons from the file of such authorities. The order ex facie suffers from the vice of non-application of mind.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Narita Investments (P) Ltd. vs Cit, Ix/Range 9 on 26 June, 2007

The Hon'ble Delhi High Court again examined the issue in the light of its own judgment in the case of Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (supra) and the judgment of the Apex court in the case of S. V. Angidi Chettiar (supra) which has been solely relied by the revenue in the case of CIT v. Vikas Promoters (P.) Ltd. (2005) 277 ITR 3371 and made it more clear that satisfaction is required to be properly recorded in clear terms in the assessment order. Their Lordship have held that assessing officer simply gave direction to issue challan for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) without recording any satisfaction for levying penalty in the assessment order and this order ex facie suffers from vice of non-application of mind and therefore penalty was rightly set aside. In this judgment their Lordship have also recorded the exact wording of the assessment order. For the sake or reference the wordings which were used in the assessment order is extracted as "penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) are initiated separately". Their Lordship have categorically held that this narration is not sufficient. The satisfaction is not to be in the mind of the assessing officer but must be reflected from the record.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 20 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next