Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Jaora Oil Mill on 27 October, 1980

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Rajendra Mulak on 31 December, 2001

5. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Jaora Oil Mills (1981) 129 TTR 423 (MP) and that the Madras High Court in CIT v. C.R. Niranjan (1991) 187 ITR 280 (Mad) the learned counsel for the assessee emphasised that these are the direct and clear authorities for the proposition that no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be imposed on the assessee for alleged concealment where the returned loss is just reduced in the assessment, notwithstanding the fact that the expression "income" includes loss also as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case CIT v. Harprasad & Co. (P) Ltd. (1975) 99 TTR 118 (SC) and CIT v. J.H. Gotla (1985) 156 ITR 323 (SC). He contended that the plea of the learned Departmental Representative that concealment penalty can be levied under Section 271(1)(c) even in,a case where returned income and finally assessed income are loss in view of Expln. 4 inserted in that section w.e.f. 1st April, 1976 is not acceptable because the said Explanation by itself cannot alter the definition of "income" given in the main section which refers to the positive income as interpreted in the various judicial pronouncements.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Nagpur Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Omrao Industrial Corpn. (P.) Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 31 December, 1986

It is urged that only the income alleged to have been concealed could for the argument sake, be considered for the purpose of penalty, as was the view of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Jaora Oil Mill (supra). The assessee's learned Counsel stresses the inapplicability of the provision of the Explanation. He repeatedly refers to the decisions of the first appellate authority in the quantum appeal as well as in the penalty appeal to highlight the claims of the assessee. It is a different matter if the explanation of the assessee was not found satisfactory, but on the fact alone, penalty could not be imposed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Victory P. H. M. Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer. on 3 October, 1983

A similar question came to be considered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court after the decision of the Tribunal quoted above in CIT v. Jaora Oil Mill [1981] 129 ITR 423. The High Court has held that for the purposes of levying penalty for concealment of income the loss returned, which has been later on ignored at the time of assessment and income is computed, cannot be held to be concealed income for the purpose of levy of penalty. The relevant observations of the High Court after quoting the relevant clauses of section 271(1) (v) are quoted below :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Panchratna Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax. on 30 March, 1993

The learned counsel for the assessee has relied on decisions in the cases of CIT vs. Jaora Oil Mills (1981) 129 ITR 423 (MP), CIT vs. C. R. Niranjan (1991) 187 ITR 280 (Mad), CIT vs. Prithipal Singh & Co. (1990) 183 ITR 69 (P&H) and Indo-Gulf Fertilizers & Chemicals Corpn. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Anr. (1992) 195 ITR 485 (All) in which the view in favour of assessee has been taken.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 16 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Zaveri Paper & Board Mill vs Income Tax Officer. on 9 February, 1993

8.2 The ITAT, Jaipur Bench in the case of Indo German Electricals vs. ITO (1992) 41 ITD 455 (JP), following the decision of Chandigarh Bench, reported in ITO vs. Sudha Pharmaceuticals (1983) 17 TTJ (Chd) 518, of Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Shri Khedut Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandli Ltd. vs. ITO, BCAJ 1032, of Bombay Bench in the case of Mutual Plastics vs. 12th ITO (1989) 80 CTR (Trib) (Bom) 45 and the judgments of Madhya Pradesh and Punjab & Haryana High Courts reported in CIT vs. Jaora Oil Mills (1981) 129 ITR 423 (MP) and (1990) 183 ITR 69 (P&L) (supra) respectively, held that since penalty under S. 271(1)(c) can be levied in addition to any tax payable by the assessee, no penalty under S. 271(1)(c) is leviable in a case where total income is assessed at a loss, as there would be no question of tax payable in such a case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 25 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Polycast Spun Pipes vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 24 February, 1995

In almost similar circumstances, Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, in the case of Jaora Oil Mill (supra), held that the penalty has to be levied in relation to the income finally computed. In the case decided by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, the assessee returned a loss of Rs. 2 lakhs. On the assessee's failure to produce the books of accounts, the ITO completed the assessment under Section 144 and computed the total income at Rs. 50,000. Penalty proceedings were initiated and the AO held that inasmuch as the assessee had shown a loss of Rs. 2 lakhs whereas its income was computed at Rs. 50,000, the entire sum of Rs. 2,50,000 was the concealed income of the assessee and accordingly, the AO levied penalty of Rs. 2,50,000. On appeal, the Tribunal held that the income concealed was the income actually determined, i.e., Rs. 50,000 and the order of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court who held that the income which was determined by the AO under Section 144 was the sum of Rs. 50,000 and it was that income which was concealed by the assessee. Applying the ratio of the above decision to the facts of the present case, we will hold that the penalty has to be levied only in relation to the income which has been finally determined after giving appeal effect to the Tribunal's order. We direct accordingly.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Abril Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. (Abril ... on 27 August, 1998

5. Placing heavy reliance on Expln. 4(a) to s. 271(1)(c), Shri Brijesh Gupta, the learned Departmental Representative argued that this Explanation applies to loss cases and, therefore, the view of the CIT(A) is not legally tenable. Shri M. Mehta, the learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that the Expln. 4(a) will apply in a situation where loss is converted into positive income and not where the loss is reduced. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessee that Expln. 4(a) was brought to statute book to overcome the difficulty created by the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT vs. Jaora Oil Mill (1981) 129 ITR 423 (MP). In that case, the assessee had filed return declaring loss of Rs. 2 lacs. The AO had completed the assessment ex parte on total income of Rs. 50,000. It was held by the Revenue authorities that the income concealed was Rs. 2,50,000. When the matter went before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that for the purposes of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) the income concealed was the income actually determined i.e. Rs. 50,000 and reduced the penalty to Rs. 50,000 from Rs. 2,50,000. At the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal granted reference and referred the following question for the opinion of the Hon'ble High Court.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next