Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (4.50 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi vs Maya Rani Punj on 21 December, 1972

Commissioner Of Gift-Tax vs C. Muthukumaraswamy Mudaliar on 23 September, 1974

The case decided by the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Maya Rani Punj is also one which is covered by Section 297(2)(g) and, therefore, the levy of penalty under the new Act could be legally justified. There is no specific provision as Section 297(2)(g) in the Gift-tax Act indicating as to in what cases the minimum penalty has to be levied.
Madras High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 17 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Kalyan Singh on 22 November, 1979

In fact, as mentioned earlier, this is an aspect of the matter which is already covered by the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Maya Rani Punj [1973] 92 ITR 394. Mr. C. S. Aggarwal made a reference to certain cases which had been decided under the W.T. Act in which the computation of the penalties by reference to the periods of default during which different provisions were in force, has been approved. It is unnecessary to consider these cases as, in our opinion, they stand on a different footing altogether. Those were cases in which different sets of provisions were applicable at different periods of time, and the court had to consider how far these provisions were to be reconciled and how these provisions had to be applied where the period of default extended over periods covered by the various provisions.
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - S Ranganathan - Full Document

Smt. Kavita Kapoor vs Income Tax Officer on 11 May, 2007

7. The learned Authorised Representative, J.S. Bhasin, filed written submissions on 26th Feb., 2007 stating therein that the AO completed original assessment under Section 143(3) r/w Section 147 on 29th Sept., 2000 (a copy placed at pp. 1 and 2 of the paper book), where no proceedings under Section 271(1)(a) have been initiated in the assessment order. Thereafter, the said assessment was set aside by the learned CIT(A) and restored to the AO vide CIT(A)'s order dt. 26th Dec, 2000 (a copy placed at pp. 4 to 9 of the paper book). He submitted that in pursuance of the order of the CIT(A), the AO completed set aside assessment vide his order dt. 7th Dec, 2001 (a copy placed at pp. 10 to 14 of the paper book), where penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(a) had been initiated for the first time. He submitted that it was argued before the CIT(A) that if the penalty proceedings had not been initiated at the time of completing the original assessment, the AO could not have initiated such proceedings at the time of completing the set aside assessment. However, this aspect was not considered by the CIT(A). He, therefore, contended that penalty imposed by the AO under Section 271(1)(a) without initiating the proceedings in the assessment order is without jurisdiction and such order is liable to be quashed on this ground itself. He submitted that the levy of penalty is not mandatory, but purely discretionary as the expression used in section 'May'. He relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Maya Rani Punj , Orissa High Court in the case of CIT v. Prafulla Kumar Mallik , Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Todarmal Safarishmal Lashkar v. CIT and Karnataka High Court in the case of M.P. Laxman v. Agrl. ITO and Anr. .
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 41 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs P.H.I. Seeds India Ltd. on 17 November, 2006

5. The IT Act does not envisage or explicitly provide that in every case where the Return is not accepted as correct, and the Assessment is framed at an income higher than that presented and offered for taxation by an assessed in the form of its Return, penalty proceedings must be initiated. This proposition must logically follow from the use of the word "may" in Section 271 in contradistinction to "shall" in Section 234. This Court has already expressed the view in CIT v. Maya Rani Punj and CIT v. Sardar Amarjit Singh that the employment of the word "may" in Section 271(1) is clearly indicative of the position that the authority concerned has a discretion in the matter of imposing a penalty; this appears also to be the opinion of the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Madras and Karnataka.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Raja Sharda Narain Singh on 27 July, 2004

5. Sri Mahajan submitted that the law fixes the minimum and maximum penalty which is to be imposed in a given set of circumstances and it is not open to the authorities constituted under the Act to impose penalty of an amount which is less than the minimum prescribed under the Act. He relied upon a Division Bench decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Ram Murti [1973] 87 ITR 577 ; a Division Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Maya Rani Punj LIR 1973 DELHI 605; a decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maya Rani Punj v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 330 ; and a Division Bench decision of the hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. J. Stead and Co. P. Ltd. [1998] 234 ITR 730.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - K N Ojha - Full Document

Cit vs Raja Sharda Narain Singh on 27 July, 2004

4. Sri Mahajan submitted that the law fixes the minimum and maximum penalty which is to be imposed in a given set of circumstances and it is not open to the authorities constituted under the Act to impose penalty of an amount which is less than the minimum prescribed under the Act. He relied upon a Division Bench decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Ram Murti (1973) 87 ITR 577 (All); a Division Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Maya Rani Punj (1973) 92 ITR 394 (Del); a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maya Rani Punj v. CIT (1986) 157 ITR 330 (SC); and a Division Bench decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. J. Stead and Co. P. Ltd. (1998) 234 ITR 730.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, New Delhi vs R. B. Jodhamal Kuthiala & Sons. on 24 April, 1973

The matter appears to us to be covered by the opinion given by this court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Maya Rani Punj (Income-tax Reference No. 50 of 1968 decided by Ansari and Kapur JJ. on December 21, 1972). After going through the entire case law, the learned judges were of the opinion that the Tribunal could not reduce the penalty 271(1) (i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This opinion was expressed upon the question :
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next