Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 46 (1.86 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Gangaram Chapolia on 2 April, 1975

Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax And ... vs Dargapandarinath Tuljayya & Co. on 10 December, 1975

49. The Full Bench of the Orissa High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gangaram Chapolia [FB] considered the nature of the penalty proceedings under Section 27I(1)(a). Considering the question when exactly an assessee can be visited with a penalty under Section 271(1)(a), the Full Bench opined that if the assessee does not furnish any explanation or furnishes a cause which is not accepted as reasonable, penalty is leviable for not furnishing the return within the time allowed. Then the learned judges compared Section 271(1)(a) and Section 276C and observed at page 619 :
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 103 - Cited by 32 - Full Document

Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Dargapandarinath Tuljayya & Co. on 17 March, 1976

The Full Bench of the Orissa High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gangaram Chapolia [1976] 103 ITR 103 ITR 613 (Orissa) [FB] considered the nature of the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(a). Considering the question when exactly an assessee can be visited with a penalty under section 271(1)(a), the Full Bench opined that if the assessee does not furnish any explanation or furnishes a cause which is not accepted as reasonable, penalty is leviable for not furnishing the return within the time allowed. Then the learned judges compared section 271(1(a) and section 276C and observed at page 619 :
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 99 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Food Corporation Of India vs Sales Tax Officer And Ors. on 7 November, 1989

"Penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. Though the language of the section does not give any indication as to how the discretion of the taxing authority is to be exercised, the onus on the dealer would be discharged by preponderance of probabilities as in a civil case and not beyond reasonable doubt. Reference in this connection may be made to the observations in the judgment in S.J.C. No. 17 of 1973 (Commissioner of Income-tax, Orissa v. Gangaram Chapolia) and O.J.C. No. 684 of 1974 (Gangaram Chapolia v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Orissa) delivered on 2nd April, 1975 [1976] 103 ITR 613 (Orissa) [FB]. Those observations have no strict application to the facts of this case as they were made under the provisions of the Income-tax Act and with different wordings. Reference has been made to those observations only to give a clear picture of the nature of the onus on the dealer and the manner in which judicial determination is to be made by the taxing authority."
Orissa High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Dongarsidas Biharilal on 20 September, 1978

In fact, the two Full Bench decisions, one of the Orissa High Court and the other of the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Ganga Ram Chapolia [1976] 103 ITR 613 and Metal India Products v. CIT [1978] 113 ITR 830 have also taken the view that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd. [1970] 77 ITR 518 is of no avail in determining the question as to whether Section 139(4) of the Act could be read as a proviso to Section 139(1) of the Act.
Patna High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Income Tax Officer vs Yugal Vijayvargiya. on 19 July, 1996

These observations were taken by the Honble Orissa High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gagaram Chapolia (supra) but in the instant case the assessee did not make any effort to show any reasonable cause of not filing the return within the stipulated time under s. 139(1) even after receiving the notice under s. 148 of the Act. Instead of disclosing the reasons for not filing the return within the stipulated time, the assessee contended that he had paid the advance-tax much more than the tax due from the assessee. Since no tax was payable, the return was not filed under s. 139(1) of the Act. These are not sufficient grounds for condoning the delay caused by the assessee in filing the return. Once it is established that the return has not been intentionally filed within the stipulated period under s. 139(1) or within the period mentioned in the notice issued under s. 148 of the Act, the AO has no other option but to initiate the penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act. Once the AO has formed an opinion under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act, penalty has to be imposed according to sub-s. (2) of s. 271 of the Act and as such in the instant case the return was not filed by the registered firm in the prescribed period and as such the registered firm has to be treated as unregistered firm for the purpose of levy of penalty and the tax assessable to be worked out as if it were an unregistered firm and the penalty to be calculated on the tax so determined.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Income Tax Officer vs Yugal Vijayvargiya on 19 July, 1996

These observations were taken by the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gagaram Chapolia (supra) but in the instant case the assessee did not make any effort to show any reasonable cause of not filing the return within the stipulated time under s. 139(1) even after receiving the notice under s. 148 of the Act. Instead of disclosing the reasons for not filing the return within the stipulated time, the assessee contended that he had paid the advance-tax much more than the tax due from the assessee. Since no tax was payable, the return was not filed under s. 139(1) of the Act. These are not sufficient grounds for condoning the delay caused by the assessee in filing the return. Once it is established that the return has not been intentionally filed within the stipulated period under s. 139(1) or within the period mentioned in the notice issued under s. 148 of the Act, the AO has no other option but to initiate the penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act. Once the AO has formed an opinion under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act, penalty has to be imposed according to sub-s. (2) of s. 271 of the Act and as such in the instant case the return was not filed by the registered firm in the prescribed period and as such the registered firm has to be treated as unregistered firm for the purpose of levy of penalty and the tax assessable to be worked out as if it were an unregistered firm and the penalty to be calculated on the tax so determined.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jaypee Infratech Ltd., Noida vs Assessee on 13 April, 2015

30. At this juncture, we respectfully take cognizance of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Verghese (supra) and decision of Full Bench of Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of Gangaram Chopalia (supra) and decision of Hon'ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of CIT vs J&KTDC (2001) 248 ITR 94 (J&K), as relied by the ld. AR. In the case of K.P. Varghese v ITO (supra), the Apex Court held that the interpretation of a statute being an exercise in the ascertainment of meaning, everything which is logically relevant should be admissible. The relevant part of the decision reads as under:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 86 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next