Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 90 (1.03 seconds)
Documents citing Addl Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs J.K. D'Costa on 27 April, 1981

Mr. Amarjeet Dhall, Ludhiana vs Assessee on 30 January, 2013

The above clearly show that second aspect was also dealt and the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court clearly showed its inability to follow the decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Addl CIT V. Indian Pharmaceuticals (supra) and rather followed the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of JK D'Costa (supra) therefore the contention of the D.R. for the Revenue is not correct that the decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court is distinguishable because they have clearly followed the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of JK D'Costa (supra) while dealing with the second aspect.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Harish Jain, Jaipur vs Pcit (Central), Jaipur on 25 November, 2022

Thus, the position boils down to this that the view taken in J.K. D'Costa's case (supra) has been confirmed by the Supreme Court and according to J.K. D'Costa's case ( supra) the Commissioner is not entitled to set aside the assessment order passed by the ITO on the ground that there was no mention of initiation of penalty proceedings in the assessment order and the Commissioner in the proceedings under section 263 cannot direct the ITO to make fresh assessment to initiate penalty proceedings.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 59 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

P.C. Puri vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi-Ii on 23 February, 1984

None of these decisions was brought to the notice of the Bench of this court in the case of D'Costa case [1982] 133 ITR 7. In the later case of Achal Kumar Jain, the Bench noticed these decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, but followed its earlier decision in the case of D'Costa and the decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court were impliedly dissented from. With respect, I find myself unable to accept the view taken by the Bench of this court in the said two cases and, in my opinion, these decisions need reconsideration by a larger Bench.
Delhi High Court Cites 61 - Cited by 32 - Full Document

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

CIT vs. J.K, D'Costa (1981) 133 ITR 7(Del.) [ SLP dismissed against the aforesaid decision] which were referred to and followed in other decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has taken note of varied decisions of different High Courts while determining the issue in favour of the assessee. The propositions laid I T A N o . 1 2 3 2 / Ah d / 1 8 [ Ki r i D y e s a n d C h e m i c a l s Lt d . V s . P r . C I T ] A. Y . 2 0 0 3 - 0 4 - 7 -
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dubbi Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti ... vs Ito Wd, Dausa on 9 September, 2025

confirmed by the Supreme Court and according to J.K. D'Costa's case ( supra) the Commissioner is not entitled to set aside the assessment order passed by the ITO on the ground that there was no mention of initiation of penalty proceedings in the assessment order and the Commissioner in the proceedings under section 263 cannot direct the ITO to make fresh assessment to initiate penalty proceedings. As the position stands concluded and settled by the Supreme Court, the question which is now sought to be referred by the Commissioner cannot be said to be a substantial question of law arising out of the Tribunal's order. It is only a question of academic nature.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gokal Chand Shammi Kumar vs Income Tax Officer on 19 February, 1998

Volume 147 (St) P. 2 "2.3.84 : Their Lordships P. M. Bhagwati and A. N. Sen, JJ. dismissed, as not being a fit case in which the question arising in the special leave petition should be decided, a special leave petition by the Department against the judgment dt. 27th April, 1981 of the Delhi High Court in IT Ref. No. 82 of 1974, Addl. CIT vs. J. K. D'Costa (1982) 133 ITR 7 (Del), whereby the High Court, on a reference, held that the CIT in a suo motu revision under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961, of an assessment proceedings, was not entitled to set aside the assessment order on the ground that there was no mention of initiation of penalty proceedings in the assessment order, and to direct the ITO to make fresh assessment and to initiate penalty proceedings : CIT vs. J. K. D'Costa : S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 11391-11392 of 1981."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

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

CIT vs. J.K, D'Costa (1981) 133 ITR 7(Del.) [ SLP dismissed against the aforesaid decision] which were referred to and followed in other decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has taken note of varied decisions of different High Courts while determining the issue in favour of the assessee. The propositions laid down by the Hon'ble Gurarat High Court will prevail over the contrary ITA Nos.327 & 759/Ahd/2015 Easy Transcription & Software Pvt.Ltd. vs.CIT/Pr.CIT Asst.Years - 2008-09 & 2010-11 respectively
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 25 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Anjis Developers Private Limited, ... vs Principle Cit-5,Mumbai, Mumbai on 20 February, 2023

"On a cursory examination, it appeared to us that the view of the Madhya Pradesh High Court as indicated indicated in the abovementioned decisions is correct, but on closer scrutiny we respectfully disagree with the same. In any case, the matter is not res integra as far as this court is concerned. In Addl. CIT v. J.K.D.' Costa, Income-tax Income Reference No. 82 of 1974, disposed of 1981 reported in [1982) 133 ITR7. we held by us on 27th April, 1981-reported on similar facts that the Commissioner could not pass an order pertaining to penalty under section263 of the Act. We held that the penalty proceedings do not form part of the assessment proceedings.Further, the failure of the ITO to record his satisfaction or the lack of it in the assessment order, with regard to the leviability of penalty cannot be a factor vitiating the assessment orders."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahaveer Singh,Ahmedabad vs The Pcit, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad on 3 March, 2026

"6. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue-in-dispute and perused the relevant material on record. According to the Ld. PCIT, the Assessing Officer failed to make inquiries on the issue of initiating penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act and said action of the Assessing Officer is without application of the mind. Before the Ld. PCIT, it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that all material facts were disclosed before the Assessing Officer.It was further submitted that case of the assessee falls within the exclusion mentioned u/s 270A(6) of the Act and therefore addition made cannot be considered as under reporting of the income for the purpose of section 270A of the Act and it was possible that Assessing Officer had after considering the fact of the case and exclusion mentioned 270A(6) of the Act, arrived at the decision that the assessee was not liable for initiating the penalty proceedings. But we find that there is no such whisper in the assessment order or in the assessment record that case falls under exclusion mentioned in section 270A(6) of the Act. Further, we find that in the case of Addl. CIT v. J.K. D's Costa (supra), the Hon'ble High Court has held penalty proceedings do not from part of assessment proceedings and failure of the Assessing Officer or ITO to record in the assessment order, his satisfaction or lack of it in regard to the leviability of the penalty, cannot be said to be a factor vitiating the assessment order in any respect.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next