Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.34 seconds)

Sikri & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 10 July, 1974

This question, whether in cases where proceedings for imposition of penalty had been taken during the course of assessment, two proceedings should be concluded simultaneously, had been argued though from slightly different point of view in the case of Nawn Estates Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax , which counsel had argued before us a few days ago. It must, however, be mentioned that there the point was that after the completion of the assessment proceedings the penalty proceeding could not have continued. In this case, however, the question is urged in a slightly different form in the sense that according to counsel for the assessee the penalty proceeding must be concluded before the assessment proceedings and if the same were not so concluded, the assessment proceeding could not be completed thereafter. Really the question forms part of the larger aspect whether, in cases where a proceeding had been taken for imposition of penalty, these proceedings must terminate at the equal point of time or whether the penalty proceeding must be completed before the completion of the assessment proceedings.
Calcutta High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 10 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs India Sea Foods on 9 March, 1977

10. Our attention was called to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Nawn Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1977] 106 ITR 384, 386 (Cal), where again the view was taken that penalty is an additional tax, and to the decision of Additional Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jeewan Lal Shah [1977] 109 ITR 474 (All), a decision of the Allahabad High Court.
Kerala High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - T K Thommen - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs National Properties Ltd. on 29 November, 1977

18. Last cited was a decision of this court in the case of Mayfair Estates Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1963] 48 ITR 217 (Cal). The facts were that the assessee-company had purchased a block of buildings in 1935 and sold one of them in 1939 at a small profit which was assessed as business income. In 1942, other properties were sold at larger profit and this time it was contended that the amount was capital gain and not business income. The memorandum of association permitted the assessee to traffic in land and other property. It was also found as a fact that the sale proceeds were not used for discharging the loan raised over the properties or for reinvestment, and the bulk of the property was only rented out. It was held on these facts that the sale of the property in this case was an ordinary trading activity of the assessee and the profit was liable to be assessed as income from business.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1