Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (1.05 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Parmanand M. Patel on 6 July, 2005

Easy Transcription & Software Pvt. ... vs Cit, Ahmedabad-Ii, , Ahmedabad on 10 January, 2017

It is not in dispute that the decision in case of Parmanand M. Patel [Supra] was rendered considering pre-amended Section 271 [1] of the Income-tax Act, 1961 {"Act" for short}. It is also not in dispute that the Tribunal was required to consider post-amended provision of section 271 [1] of the Act. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set-aside, and the matter is required to be remanded to the Tribunal for deciding the appeal by considering the amendment in Section 271 [1] of the Act. Learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective sides are not in a position to dispute the same and as such are not disputing the above.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 25 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Shri Shantilal Vallavdas Patel,, ... vs The Cit-Iii, Baroda on 18 May, 2017

It is not in dispute that the decision in case of Parmanand M. Patel [Supra] was rendered considering pre-amended Section 271 [1] of the Income-tax Act, 1961 {"Act" for short}. It is also not in dispute that the Tribunal was required to consider post-amended provision of section 271 [1] of the Act. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set-aside, and the matter is required to be remanded to the Tribunal for deciding the appeal by considering the amendment in Section 271 [1] of the Act. Learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective sides are not in a position to dispute the same and as such are not disputing the above.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Kiri Dyes & Chemicals Ltd. , Ahmedabad vs The Pr. Cit-2,, Ahmedabad on 10 October, 2019

It is not in dispute that the decision in case of Parmanand M. Patel [Supra] was rendered considering pre-amended Section 271 [1] of the Income-tax Act, 1961 {"Act" for short}. It is also not in dispute that the Tribunal was required to consider post-amended provision of section 271 [1] of the Act. Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Tribunal cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set-aside, and the matter is required to be remanded to the Tribunal for deciding the appeal by considering the amendment in Section 271 [1] of the Act. Learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective sides are not in a position to dispute the same and as such are not disputing the above.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hasmukh Hirji Gada,Pune vs Pcit (Central), Pune, Pune on 7 November, 2024

Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs Paramanand Patel (supra) and the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Subash Kumar Jain (supra) we set aside the order of the Commissioner passed u/s 263 in directing the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jayesh V. Sheth, Mumbai vs Cit 16, Mumbai on 20 September, 2017

Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Paramanand Patel (supra) and the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Subash Kumar Jain (supra) we set aside the order of the Commissioner passed u/s 263 in directing the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dharmanandan Diamonds P. Ltd, Mumbai vs Cit 5, Mumbai on 23 March, 2017

Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Paramanand Patel (supra) and the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Subash Kumar Jain (supra) we set aside the order of the Commissioner passed u/s 263 in directing the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

J.P. Construction, Ahmedabad vs Assessee

In the case of CIT v. Parmanad M.Patel (supra), Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has held that the CIT is not empowered to record satisfaction by invoking s.271(1)(c) of the Act and if he is not entitled to do so, on his own, he cannot do it by directing the assessing authority. The Court observed that in other words, what the CIT himself cannot do, he cannot get it done though the assessing authority by exercising revisional powers.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Shriniwas Engineering Auto ... vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax-3,, ... on 28 February, 2019

In the case of CIT v. Parmanad M.Patel (supra), Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has held that the CIT is not empowered to record satisfaction by invoking s.271(1)(c) of the Act and if he is not entitled to do so, on his own, he cannot do it by directing the assessing authority. The Court observed that in other words, what the CIT himself cannot do, he cannot get it done though the assessing authority by exercising revisional powers.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 28 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

U V Ramana Murthy Raju,, Visakhapatnam vs Tje Cit - 1,, Visakhapatnam on 21 June, 2017

In this case, the assessing officer has not initiated the penalty proceedings which required to be initiated by him. The CIT has the powers vested under section 271(1)(c) to initiate penalty and consequently the CIT is empowered to get it done through the AO by virtue of powers vested in section 263 of Income tax act. Accordingly, the CIT has directed the A.O. to initiate the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). The Ld. A.R. relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Paramanand M Patel 278 ITR 0003 (2005) which was rendered before the amendment of section 271 of the Act. Section 271 of the Act is amended to include the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner to initiate the penalty proceedings by finance Act 2002, w.e.f.01/06/2002. Therefore, subsequent to the amendment of section 271 we are of the considered opinion that the CIT can initiate himself or by exercising power u/s 263 of the Act, direct the assessing officer to initiate the penalty proceedings u/s 271 of the Act. The case law relied upon by the assessee was prior to the amendment of section 271 of the Act. Hon'ble High Court held that CIT was not empowered to record the satisfaction and once he is not empowered to do so on his own, he cannot direct the 8 ITA No.27/Vizag/2014 U.V. Ramanamurthy Raju, VSKP assessing authority in revision powers. The case on hand is related to the assessment year 2006-07and subsequent to the amendment. After the amendment, CIT also empowered to initiate the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the case law relied upon by the assessee is not helpful to him.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Panji Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next