Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.28 seconds)
Documents citing Haji Mohamad Jamaluddin Brothers vs Union Of India (Uoi) Owning Central ... on 18 July, 1958

Seetharama Lakshmi Rice And Groundnut ... vs Income-Tax Officer, K-Ward And Ors. on 30 March, 1977

We see no force in this contention. Sub-section (2) is an integral part of Section 271. It has made a special provision in regard to firms, registered or otherwise, for levying penalty. That such a provision is not repugnant to Article 14 was held by the Supreme Court in fain Brothers v. Union of India [1910] 77 ITR 107. Therefore, Section 271(l)(a)(i), when, it is applied to a firm, will have to be applied along with Sub-section (2). The non obstante clause occurring in Sub-section (2) is very significant. According to it, notwithstanding anything contained in the other provisions of the Act, the penalty imposable under Sub-section (1) of Section 271 shall be the same amount as would be imposable on that firm if that firm were an unregistered firm. Therefore, whatever be the effect of the other provisions, including the use of the word "tax" in Sub-clause (i), the penalty will have to be imposed as if the petitioner were an unregistered firm. That is what precisely the department did.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 18 - Cited by 16 - Full Document
1