Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.51 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Vegetable Products Ltd. on 26 June, 1969

Praveen Dress Mfg. Co. vs Seventh Income-Tax Officer. on 5 May, 1989

10. Lastly, it was argued that when two interpretations of a provision are possible, the one in favour of the assessee should be adopted as explained by the Supreme court in the case of CIT v. Vegetable products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192 which has been applaud in the case of Jindal Aluminium Ltd. [IT Appeal Nos. 855 and 856/Bang/1987]. The supreme court was dealing with the language of a taxing provision which was capable of more interpretations than one. The interpretation called for [Sec. 251[1]] is not a taxing provision and the above principle does not apply. The natural meaning of the language used in section 251(1) does not admit of any interpretation restricting the power of the Appellate Asst. Commissioner when a matter comes to him as a consequence of remand unless the order of remand itself fixes the compass of enquiry. Provisions conferring powers are to be broadly construed unless restrictions are in built in the provision itself. If the section contains no express provision excluding jurisdiction, the ordinary powers generally exercisable by the authority should be presumed to be existing if as a consequence of remand the first appellate authority should get seisin of the entire appeal. The powers of the first appellate authority under section 251[1] are not reduced unless in a given case the order of remand itself specifies the scope of enquiry in the issue remanded. In the present case, the order of the Tribunal placing no such limitation, the Appellate Asst. Commissioner was well within his authority to exercise all the powers under section 251(1) (a) as the order of Appellate Asst. Commissioner has been set aside in entirely. The ground relating to jurisdiciton is, therefore, pronounced against the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Wealth-Tax Officer vs Grand Lodge Of India on 26 February, 1987

8. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. We have also very carefully gone through the relevant provisions of statutory law along with the judgments cited by the rival sides. Besides the catena of cases they have referred to, we have gone through the Supreme Court judgments in the cases of V. Venugopala Ravi Varma Rajah v. Union of India [1969] 74 ITR 49 ; CWT v. Bishwa nath Chatterjee [1976] 103 ITR 536 and CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat vs R. Ochhavlal & Co. on 3 December, 1975

24. Shri shah put some reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in commissioner of Income-tax v. Vegetable products Ltd., and Hindustan Steel applicable to the facts of the present case. In the case of Vegetable Products Ltd., it was held that in calculating the penalty leviable under section 271(1)(a)(i) of the Act for failure to file the returns of income within time without reasonable cause, the amount paid by the assessee under provision assessment under section 23B if the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, had to be deducted from the amount of tax determined under section 23(2) of that Act, in order to determine the amount of tax on which the computation of the penalty was to be based. This ratio has obviously with regard to the computation of income as contemplated by clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 271. In another case of Hindustan Steel Ltd., the Supreme Court has decided that there would be justification for refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or vehicle breach of the provisions of the Act. Even this decision has no relevance to the facts of the present case, because bench, which the assessee is found to have made, is neither technical nor venial. The facts of the case show that the said breach was the result of conduct which was obviously contumacious and dishonest.
Gujarat High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

Brij Gopal Denga And Ors. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr. on 9 November, 1977

In Commr. of Income-tax, West Bengal v. Vegetable Product Ltd., (1973) 3 SCR 448: AIR 1973 SC 927, it was observed: (At p. 928) "There is no doubt that the acceptance of one or the other interpretations sought to be placed on Section 271(1)(a)(i) by the parties would lead to some inconvenient result, but the duty of the Court is to read the section, understand its language and give effect to the same."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Venilal Dwarkadas Mehta on 1 August, 1972

9. There is no dispute at all at the Bar that if a valid demand, has been raised and a notice of demand is served under Section 156 of the Act and the assessee fails to satisfy the same within 35 days of the service of the notice of demand as provided under Section 220(1) of the Act, the assessee is a defaulter in terms of Sub-section (4) of Section 220 of the Act and, in respect of such an assessee, penalty is leviable under Section 221(1) of the Act. After giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee of being heard, penalty can be levied. We have no doubt in our minds that unless there is a condonation of the past default, even when the demand has been already satisfied, penalty is leviable on the basis of the past default. The decision in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vegetable Products Ltd., [1971] 80 I.T.R. 14 (Cal.).
Orissa High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Patram Dass Raja Ram Beri. on 28 March, 1981

On appeal, the AAC reduced the penalty from Rs. 63,602 to Rs. 57,244. The assessee filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found that no reasonable cause existed, but relying on the observations made in CIT v. Vegetable products Ltd. [1973] 88 ITR 192(SC), held that a refund of Rs. 3,676 fell due to the assessee and thus no tax was payable by the assessee with reference to which the penalty could be computed.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 54 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi vs Hindustan Industrial Corporation, New ... on 18 August, 1971

The learned counsel next cited Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal v Vegetable Products Ltd., 80 I.T.R. 14(6). In the said case a notice under sec- tion 22(2) was served on the assessed on the 13th June, 1969 and he was required to file the return of his income by the 18th July, I960, on which date the assessed asked for extension by two months. The extension was allowed. On the 16th January. 1961, the assessed was served with a notice under section 23(3). He filed the return on the 17th January. 1961 for the assessment year 1960-61, for the corresponding accounting calendar year 1959. The Income-tax Officer took more than two years to complete the assessment. The assessment was made on 31st October, 1962 after the-Income-Tax Act, 1961 had come into force. The assessed was served with a notice under section 274(1) of the Act in connection with the proceedings for imposition of penalty. This notice was issued on the 15th May. 1963. A preliminary objection was taken that the notice was invalid and no penalty proceedings could be initiated as the assessment proceedings had already been completed. The assessed further contended that it was prevented from filing the return within time as its audited balance sheet could not be prepared earlier than October, I960' due to the absence of its accountant. The Income-tax Officer rejected both the contentions and imposed a penalty of Rs. 12,734.00 under section 271(l)(a) of the Act. The appellate Assistant Commissioner in appeal maintained the order of imposition of penalty. Before the Tribunal amongst other contentions. one of the contentions urged was that the amount of penalty for not filing the return was a sum equal to 2 % of the tax for every month during which default continued. A demand was made on the assessed for Rs. 1,16,601.00 after making a provisional assessment under section 23-B of the 1922 Act. Later on this demand was rectified under section 35 of the 1922 Act to Rs. 92,294-55. The amount was paid by the assessed on the 22nd February, 1961. The demand made under section 23(3) was also Rs. 1,59,180.00 but it was later on rectified to Rs. 1,26,512.00 minus Rs. 92,294-55, i.e. Rs. 34,217-55. In that event the amount of penalty levied at 2% per month for four months on Rs. 34,217-55 came to Rs. 2,737-44. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the assessed and held that tax payable by it was the tax ultimately determined to be so payable after giving credit for all the payments made towards the tax liability. The Tribunal accordingly reduced the penalty to Rs. 2,737.00. At the instance of the department a question of law, "whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in calculating the penalty leviable u/s 271(l)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the amount paid by the assessed under the provisional assessment u/s 23-B of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, was to be deducted from the amount of tax determined u/s 23(3) of that Act in order to determine the amount of tax on which the computation of penalty was to be based and in reducing the amount of penalty imposed on the assessed to Rs. 2,737.00" was referred to the High Court. The Court held that unless on the day the penalty is imposed some amount of tax remained outstanding or payable by the assessed no penalty could be imoposed at all and that the penalty was to be calculated with reference to the actual amount due and payable by the assessed on the date of imposition of the penalty.
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi ... vs Bharat Nidhi Ltd. on 5 October, 1981

(6) We would only like to add that, even assuming that there is a possibility of some doubt in regard to the above construction and even if it is taken to be a case of legislative ambiguity, the assessed should be entitled to the benefit of doubt particularly In a provision which attempts to penalize the assessed. Tilis is a well-settled principle of construction of taxing statutes: Vide, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-1 vs. Vegetable Product Ltd. (1973 88 Itr 192) and other cases cited in foot note (7) at page 2 of Kanga & Palkivala (Volume I, 7th Edition). However we should like to make it clear that these observations of our should not be understood to reflect any misgiving or doubt on our part as to the construction of the provisions outlined earlier in our judgment.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S Ranganathan - Full Document
1   2 Next