Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.99 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Haryana Warehousing Corporation on 1 July, 2009

Transpek Silco Industry Ltd, Baroda vs Assessee on 29 July, 2009

12.2 The learned departmental representative basically relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textile Processors 306 ITR 277 (SC) wherein it is held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not a civil wrong and mens rea is not required to be established. This judgment was considered by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Haryana Warehousing Corporation (2009) (supra) wherein it is held that the issue arose before the Apex Court was u/s 11C inserted in the Central Excise Act, 1944 by the Finance Act, 1996 where penalty for evasion of payment of tax had to be mandatorily levied irrespective of the fact whether it was an intentional or innocent omission. Thus, the Apex Court was examining a proposition whether mens rea was an essential ingredient before levy of penalty u/s 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Astra Housing & Investment P. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 3 June, 2011

10. The order of the Tribunal with regard to penalty as levied by the Assessing Officer, has been assailed by the learned counsel for the assessee, mainly on the ground that in the given facts and circumstances, it could not be said to be a case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. He also submitted that the primary burden of proof was on the Revenue and that satisfaction was required to be recorded by the Assessing Officer in this regard before proceedings to levy any penalty under Section 27(1)(c). Learned counsel relied upon various judgments in support of his submissions. A reference can be made to those, viz., Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT, (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC); Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors, (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC); CIT v. Reliance ITA No. 622/2008 Page 9 of 14 Petroprdoucts Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC); CIT v. Haryana Warehousing Corporation, (2009) 314 ITR 215 (P&H); CIT v. Sidhartha Enterprises, (2010) 322 ITR 80 (P&H); Ms.Madhushree Gupta v. Union of India, (2009) 317 ITR 107 (Delhi), CIT v. Nath Bros.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - M L Mehta - Full Document

Gurdaspur Improvement Trust,, ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 9 January, 2014

By showing utmost regard and by following the finding judgment of the jurisdictional Hon'ble 12 I.T.A. No. 461(Asr)/2011 Assessment year: 2006-07 Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Haryana Warehousing Corporation cited at (2011) 53 DTR (P&H) and after giving thoughtful consideration to overall facts and circumstances, it can be safely held that the ld. Assessing Officer is not justified in making an addition of Rs. 91,49,311/- by not giving specific instances of diversion and misdirections of the Trust's accumulated funds/income from its main charitable objectives of general public utility as envisaged under provisions of Section 2(15) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and before doing so denying the opportunity of confrontation and hearing to the appellant in the larger interest of natural justice. Instead of doing this, he ought to have allowed the benefit of carrying forward the set apart accumulated funds on the strength of form No. 10 r/w Rule 17 of the I.T. Rules, 1962 laying already available with him. On both these counts, the addition made by the A.O. cannot be sustained in the eye of justice. Accordingly, the addition so made at Rs. 91,49,311/- is hereby deleted. This disposes of appellant's ground of appeal No. 1 & 4 in favour of the appellant accordingly."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vikramaditya Education Society, ... vs Assessee on 9 February, 2011

5.1 With regard to the denial of claim of exemption u/s 10 (23C) (iiiad), contested in ground No.3 of appeal, the AR submitted that the primary object of the appellant society is imparting education and for the fulfillment of that object, a primary school is being run. He relied upon the case law of jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Haryana Warehousing Corporation, 43 ITR 580 wherein it was held that if the primary or predominant object of any Institution is charitable, any other object which might not be charitable but which is ancillary to dominate purpose -eligible as valid charitable institution.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Krishna Sachdeva, New Delhi vs Assessee on 16 September, 2009

and CIT Vs Haryana Warehousing Corp. 314 ITR 215 (P & H). The Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the contention of the assessee on the ground that the assessee herself admitted that the return was compiled on the basis of audited accounts. She has the services of the C.A. and therefore, she cannot take the plea that she was not conversant with the complexity of tax laws. As far as the contention of the assessee is that she would not get any financial benefit because no business is being carried out for the last 12 years and there is no scope of any business activities in the subsequent yeas are concerned, Ld. CIT(A) has observed that nobody can be aptly certain about the future prospects of ones business and the sense of enterpreneurship always strive to gain profits. He rejected the appeal of the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rahul Swarup, Muzaffarnagar vs Department Of Income Tax on 26 March, 2010

Further, it has been also decided in the case of C.I.T. vs. Haryana Warehousing Corporation (P&H) P. 215 (ITA No. 871 of 2008), Dated 1.7.2009 (Punjab & Haryana) that levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for non-disclosure of deemed dividend income on account of ignorance of law the penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not imposable upon assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next