Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.76 seconds)S. Sivakumar vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 19 February, 1997
In the case of Mohd. Ibrahim Azimulla v. CIT[1981] 131 ITR 680 (All.), the assessee filed revised return. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held that section 139(1) of the Act, makes it obligatory on an assessee, whose income exceeds the maximum, which is not chargeable to income-tax, to file a return of this total income.
Gian Chand Bhatia vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 28 November, 1996
In this connection, however, reference may be made to a decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim Azimulla v. CIT[1981] 131 ITR 680 (All.), which also helps the assessee inasmuch as even if it could be stated literally that the assessee did not make any specific disclosure about Rs. 9,25,000 in his return it was due to want of care by him without the absence of any fraud or wilful neglect and such want of care would not make him guilty of concealment. In fact, it is quite difficult to say even about the absence of want of care by the assessee as he has been all along informing the department by written representations that he had made a disclosure of Rs. 9,25,000 on the day of search itself.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Nathulal Agarwala And Sons on 12 March, 1985
CIT v. Quality Sweet House [1981] 130 ITR 309, CIT v. Chiranji Lal Shanti Swarup [1981] 130 ITR 651 and Mohd. Ibrahim Azimulla v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 680.
Vishwakarma Industries vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 12 February, 1982
CIT v. Quality Sweet House [1981] 130 ITR 309 (All), CIT v. Chiranji Lal Shanti Swarup [1981] 130 ITR 651 (All) and Mohd. Ibrahim Azimulla v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 680 (All).
Rajesh Chawla vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 22 May, 2006
Ganga Parsad v. CIT : Sulemanji Ganibhai v. CIT ; Mohd. Ibrahim Azimullah v. CIT ; CIT v. Haji P. Mohammad (1981) 23 CTR (Ker) 39 : (1981) 132 ITR 623 (Ker); Kumar Jagadish Chandra Sinha v. CIT ; Nav Nirman Co. v. CIT ; Union Engineering Co. v. CIT ; Add/.
Varun Enterprises vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax. on 16 September, 1992
Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Mohd. Ibrahim Azimulla vs. CIT (1981) 131 ITR 680 (All) in support of the contention that the disclosure made under the threat of being caught is not voluntary.
Devender Singh (Huf) vs Income-Tax Officer on 18 March, 1996
5. Before parting we would like to record our finding that the cases relied upon by the learned departmental representative are distinguishable on the peculiar facts of the case as obtained here. Since we find that there was no element of fraud or wilful neglect in the above case and that the disclosure of the additional income, that arose due to the agreement between the parties after the filing of the original return, being beyond the control of the assessee and also that the said income cannot be said to have arisen in the relevant previous year, the penalty is not exigible. It is accordingly deleted.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Dr. Sajjan Singh Malik on 6 October, 1988
10. It was then argued that for the purpose of imposition of penalty, the revised return had to be taken into consideration. On the peculiar facts of this case, we are not impressed with the arguments as conscious concealment of income from private practice is clearly established. Moreover, in view of CIT v. J. K. A. Subramania Chettiar [1977] 110 ITR 602 (Mad), Amjad AH Nazir Ali v. CIT (1977] 110 ITR 419 (Alt), Mohd. Ibrahim Azimulla v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 680 (All), Addl CIT v. Radhey Shy am [1980] 123 ITR 125 (All) and S. R. Arulprakasam v. Smt. Prema Malini Vasan, ITO [1987] 163 ITR 487 (Mad), the first return has to be taken into account for finding out the conduct of the assessee and the concealment made by him.
Handum Industries Ltd, Hyderabad vs Assessee on 5 March, 2012
iii) Mohammad Ibrahim Azimulla Vs. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 680 (All.)