Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 121 (0.87 seconds)
Documents citing Diwan Enterprises vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 5 November, 1998

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

Gujarat State Financial Services ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 4 September, 2006

in our considered opinion, was not brought to the notice of the Delhi High Court in (a) CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2000) 246 ITR 568; (b) Diwan Enterprises v. CIT (2000) 246 ITR 571 (Delhi); and (c) CIT v. Vlkas Promoters P. Ltd. (2005) 277 ITR 337 (Delhi). Therefore, the indication in the assessment order by the Assessing Officer that penalty proceedings are initiated separately is suffice to prove that the Assessing Officer had satisfied himself in the course of the assessment proceedings that the assessee had concealed his income, as in the instance case."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 66 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Vikram Chadha vs Income Tax Officer on 19 February, 2008

Still, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court by relying on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Jain Bros, v. Union of India (supra), DM. Manasavi v. CIT (supra) and the judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (supra) and Diwan Enterprises v. CIT (supra) held that the assumption of jurisdiction by issue of notice under Section 271(1)(c) without recording valid satisfaction was bad in law because satisfaction about the concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was not recorded by the AO. The Hon'ble High Court also held that the jurisdictional defect cannot be cured. The facts of the present case are similar to the facts of the case before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. Here also, the AO has not recorded any finding whether the notice under Section 271(1)(c) was issued for concealing the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana high Court is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The learned CIT(A) ought to have considered these facts while recording a finding that this judgment of a jurisdictional High Court in the above case is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The judgment of jurisdictional High Court is binding on all the authorities working in its jurisdiction. Failure to follow such judgment is a serious lapse on the part of the CIT(A).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Lotus Learning (P.) Ltd. vs Dy Cit on 25 July, 2005

In the assessment order, the assessing officer has only to comply with the requirement was laid down by the decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Diwan Enterprises v. CIT (2000) 246 ITR 571 (Del), CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Del) and CIT v. Super Metal Re-rollers (P) Ltd. (2004) 265 ITR 82 (Del). The requirement is that he must record a satisfaction about concealment of income for initiating penalty. This satisfaction is only prima facie. There is no requirement that concealment has to be proved in the assessment order. What is to be seen is whether the assessing officer has applied his mind before initiating penalty or that he has routinely initiated the penalty after making several additions in the assessment order and not satisfying as to in respect of which addition, there is an element of concealment of particulars of income or of filing of inaccurate particulars. Where there are certain disallowances for want of evidence or there are certain claims, the assessee was not able to establish and there may be other additions, where there may not be any charge of filing inaccurate particulars of income or concealing particulars of income, it becomes very difficult to know as to, in respect of which item the assessing officer has applied his mind before initiating penalty. In the present case, things are entirely different. After every addition, the assessing officer has mentioned that penalty is initiated on this account. In other words, while making addition either on account of double claim of FPS account or unexplained payment to distributors or unexplained claim in foreign travel expenses, the assessing officer was specific after each addition and he initiated penalty proceedings thereafter. It was not a case where assessing officer had without application of mind initiated penalty at the end of the assessment order. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that there was no satisfaction of the assessing officer before initiating penalty proceedings. We inter from the conduct of the assessing officer apparent from the manner in which the assessment order has been drafted wherein the facturn of initiation of penalty proceedings has been mentioned after every addition that lie has applied his mind and he was satisfied about concealment of income and only thereafter penalty proceedings were initiated. There is another point to be noted is that he has not left it to the office staff to initiated penalty proceedings by simply mentioning "to initiate penalty proceedings". He has mentioned penalty proceedings "initiated" after each amount of addition. We are satisfied that assessing officer has followed the basic requirement of application of mind before initiating penalty proceedings. Accordingly, this ground of assessee is rejected.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Brindavan Agencies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs Assessee on 27 July, 2015

• Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT(2007) 291 ITR 519(SC) • T. Ashokpai v. CIT (2007) 161 Taxman 221 (SC)/(2007) 292 ITR 11(SC) • CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 568 (Del) • Diwan Enterprises v. CIT (2000) 246 ITR 571 (Del) • Anamtharam Veerasinghaiah & Co. v. CIT (1980) 123 ITR 437(SC) • Union of India v. Dharmendra Textiles Processors (2007) 295 ITR 244 (SC) • Kanbey Software India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT, Circle 8, Pune (2009) 31 SOT 153 (Pune) • Union of India v. Rajasthan Spg & Wvg. Mills (2009) 180 Taxman 609 (SC) • CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd. (2010) 36 DTR 449 (SC)/ (2010) 322 ITR 158(SC) • Ajai Jain vs. ACIT (2012) 34CCH 006 Del Trib.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next