Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (1.89 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs C.R. Niranjan on 14 June, 1990

M/S.Crn Investments (P) Limited vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 13 February, 2014

7. Mr.Arun Kurian Joseph, learned Standing counsel appearing for the revenue contended that the reliance placed on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Prithipal Singh, (supra) and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in CIT Vs. C.R.Niranjan (supra) are misconceived in the light of the recent decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Moser Baer India Limited, reported in (2009) 315 ITR 460 and Joint Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Saheli Leasing and Industries Limited reported in (2010) 324 ITR 170.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 12 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document

Panchratna Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax. on 30 March, 1993

The learned counsel for the assessee has relied on decisions in the cases of CIT vs. Jaora Oil Mills (1981) 129 ITR 423 (MP), CIT vs. C. R. Niranjan (1991) 187 ITR 280 (Mad), CIT vs. Prithipal Singh & Co. (1990) 183 ITR 69 (P&H) and Indo-Gulf Fertilizers & Chemicals Corpn. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Anr. (1992) 195 ITR 485 (All) in which the view in favour of assessee has been taken.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 16 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Nuchem Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 23 August, 1993

In the case of CIT v. C.R. Niranjan [1991] 187 ITR 280 (Mad.), the ITO rejected the account books and estimated the business income. On appeal, the Tribunal partly deleted the additions and partly sustained the additions on account of unexplained cash credit. When the matter of penalty came before the Hon'ble Madras High Court, it was held that the department had not brought any material to show that the assessee had concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In the case of Chhotey Lal.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 18 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Asstt. Cit vs Rajendra Mulak on 31 December, 2001

5. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Jaora Oil Mills (1981) 129 ITR 423 (MP) and that the Madras High Court in CIT v. C.R. Niranjan (1991) 187 ITR 280 (Mad) the learned counsel for the assessee emphasised that these are the direct and clear authorities for the proposition that no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be imposed on the assessee for alleged concealment where the returned loss is just reduced in the assessment, notwithstanding the fact that the expression "income" includes loss also as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case CIT v. Harprasad & Co. (P) Ltd. (1975) 99 ITR 118 (SC) and CIT v. J.H. Gotla (1985) 156 ITR 323 (SC). He contended that the plea of the learned Departmental Representative that concealment penalty can be levied under section 271(1)(c) even in a case where returned income and finally assessed income are loss in view of Explanation 4 inserted in that section with effect from 1-4-1976 is not acceptable because the said Explanation by itself cannot alter the definition of "income" given in the main section which refers to the positive income as interpreted in the various judicial pronouncements.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Nagpur Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next