Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.40 seconds)
Documents citing Sri Bidyut Kumar Sett vs Income-Tax Officer on 8 October, 2004

Jet Electronics vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 26 October, 2007

The decision of the Special Bench in the case of Bidyut Kumar Sett v. ITO (supra) will not assist the Revenue as in that case the subject-matter of the appeal was the penalty levied under Section 271(l)(c) and the penalty is based on the total income computed by the AO. The finding given in the order passed under Section 263 by the CIT relates to the issue whether the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The finding given in the order passed under Section 263 is not based on the computation of total income by the AO. Therefore, we are of the view that the objection raised by the Registry is not sustainable and the assessee has paid the fees in accordance with Clause (d) of Section 253(6) of the Act which was rightly applicable in the case of the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jainarayan Moolchand Agrawal (Decd) ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 7 July, 2006

7. In this case, the assessee has not shown any valid reason for not preferring the fee of appeal within prescribed time because only on payment of full Tribunal fee, the appeal would be treated to have been filed and in this case deficiency in payment of fee has been made good on 19th April, 2006 so the assessee was required to explain the delay beyond 8th June, 2005 till 19th April, 2006. The assessee is still of the opinion that fee payable is Rs. 500 whereas Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bidyut Kumar Sett v. ITO (supra) Calcutta Tribunal Special Bench, has held that Tribunal fee against the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was to be in accordance with the income determined as provided under Section 253(6)(a)(b)(c) and not under Section 253(6)(d), as contended by learned Counsel for the assessee, and relevant conclusion is as under-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jabalpur Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Centre For Rural Studies And ... vs Assessee on 16 January, 2014

Residuary clauses introduced as clause (d) with effect from 01/06/1999 takes care of all appeals including the appeals against certain penalties, which have no nexus with the amount of income assessed. If the expression 'case' used in subsequent used to be read as assessment order if the expression 'case', then, for the period prior to 01/06/1999 when clause (d) was inserted no filing fees would be leviable inspite of appeals filed by the assessee against the orders other than assessment orders. Therefore, the present interpretation made by the learned counsel for the assessee is devoid of merit and actually the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal is with regard to the addition, which does not fall under the purview of clause (d) of section 253(6) of the IT Act. Further, we place reliance on the judgment of the Special Bench in the case of Bidyuth Kumar Sett Vs. ITO, 92 ITD 148 (Cal.).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Manish Trading C0. Kanpur, Kanpur vs Assessee on 27 July, 2012

short "the Act"), the assessee was required to deposit only `500 as Tribunal fee in appeal filed against penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Though there was a controversy with regard to the payment of Tribunal fee in appeal against penalty orders, yet the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Tribunal. Now the controversy in this regard has been set at rest by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sri Bidyut Kumar Sett v. ITO [2005] 272 ITR (AT) 75 (SB) wherein it has been held that in the matter concerning levy of penalty, only `500 is payable towards institution fee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Harbour Heights Co Op Hsg Socety Ltd , ... vs Assessee on 24 December, 2009

2. At the time of hearing, learned Counsel submitted that the Registry has sent a defect memo pointing out that there is short payment of institution fees (Rs.5134/- to be paid in addition to Rs.500/- paid by the assessee). Placing reliance upon the decision of the Larger Bench of the ITAT in the case of Sri Bidyut Kumar Sett vs. ITO (2005) 272 ITR (AT) 75 (SB) and Dr. Ajith Kumar Pandey vs. ITAT (2009) 310 ITR 195 (Patna), learned Counsel submitted that in matters concerning levy of penalty, only Rs.500/- is payable towards institution fees and hence appeal is in order. Under these circumstances, we admit the appeal.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1