Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 298 (0.51 seconds)
Documents citing Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Parikh Petro Chemicals Agencies (P.) ... on 17 August, 2000

R.Geetha, , Coimbatore vs Assessee on 11 October, 2012

A.Y 2007-08 "5. The Assessing Officer had added Rs.1,30,000/- as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the I.T.Act. The Assessing Officer contends that even though the appellant was asked to explain the source, identity and capacity of the person who had given the above amount, the appellant was not able to explain the source of the above transaction for RS.1 ,30,000/-. This addition was accepted by the appellant and had not filed appeal before the CIT(Appeals) or ITAT. 5.1 The Assessing Officer has given detailed reasons in rejecting the submissions put forth by the appellant for not levying the penalty. I am in full agreement for the reasons cited by the Assessing officer for levy of penalty as it is evident that Rs.1,30,000/- added u/s 68 was clear concealment under the provisions of the I.T. Act. Further, the judgement in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd. reported in 36 DTR 449 [SC] will not come to the rescue of the appellant as the same was regarding penalty on disallowance of expenditure. Therefore, the penalty levied at RS.31,234/- u/s 271 (1)(c) is confirmed in the hands of the appellant."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Haldex India Limited,, vs Department Of Income Tax on 19 August, 2015

13. The Revenue has not disputed that the payment of Employees contribution towards PF and ESIC were deposited by the assessee before the due date of filing of return under the provisions of the Act. We find that this issue has already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported as 319 ITR 306. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. (supra) and in the case of CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd. reported as 368 ITR 749, following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction on contribution to the employee welfare funds, if the amount has been credited on or before the due date of filing of the return. We do not find any infirmity in the 10 ITA Nos. 638 & 639/PN/2014, A.Ys. 2004-05 & 2008-09 impugned order in deleting the addition on this count. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Haldex India Limited,, vs Department Of Income Tax on 19 August, 2015

13. The Revenue has not disputed that the payment of Employees contribution towards PF and ESIC were deposited by the assessee before the due date of filing of return under the provisions of the Act. We find that this issue has already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported as 319 ITR 306. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. (supra) and in the case of CIT Vs. Ghatge Patil Transport Ltd. reported as 368 ITR 749, following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the assessee would be entitled to deduction on contribution to the employee welfare funds, if the amount has been credited on or before the due date of filing of the return. We do not find any infirmity in the 10 ITA Nos. 638 & 639/PN/2014, A.Ys. 2004-05 & 2008-09 impugned order in deleting the addition on this count. Accordingly, this ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Acit, New Delhi vs M/S. Tirupati Buildings & Officers Pvt. ... on 9 February, 2023

25. Similar views have been expressed in, Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s India Cements Ltd., Chennai in Tax Appeal Case No.117/2009 (Madras High Court), Sir Syed Educational and Social Welfare Society, Bhopal v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Bhopal in ITA Nos. 102-108/2019 (MP High Court ) and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 v. M/s Dhara Vegetable Oil and Foods Company Ltd. in ITA 454/2019 (Delhi High Court).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Super Cassettes Industries Ltd., New ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 31 May, 2011

8. Regarding penalty imposed on account of brought forward losses of Mandakini Acqua Mineral Pvt. Ltd., it was argued that the said company was merged with the assessee company w.e.f. 1st April, 1998 and as per provisions of Section 72A the brought forward losses to the extent of Rs.68,85,252/- were set off against the assessee's income for A. Y. 1999- 2000. It was further submitted that however the business of manufacture and sale of mineral water as done by amalgamating company was discontinued w.e.f. 30.06.2001 and, therefore, the conditions for carrying and setting off loss u/s 72A were violated however since the return was already filed and the date of filing revised return had also expired therefore, there was no option left with the assessee for revising the same but when Assessing Officer enquired about this carried forward loss the same was immediately 8 ITA No.4788/Del/2011 surrendered. However there was no filing of inaccurate particulars as complete particulars were filed at the time of filing of return. The assessee was under bonafide belief that it will continue to carry on the business of amalgamating company for a period of five years and, therefore, had claimed the loss of amalgamating company. At the time of filing of return it was not known that assessee will discontinue its business. Therefore, it was argued that it was not false claim and Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (appeals) had rightly deleted the penalty alter relying upon the case law of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd. (supra) decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Arunaben D.Patel, Baroda vs Assessee on 17 July, 2012

It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro-chemical (supra) that merely because of the assessee had claimed the expenditure which was not accepted or acceptable to the Revenue that by itself would not attract penalty under Section 271(I)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Respectfully following the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro-chemical Pvt Ltd (supra) the AO is directed to delete the penalty.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Super Cassettes Industries Ltd., New ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 11 July, 2011

"I have considered the submissions of the appellant and the penalty order. It is a settled proposition of law that the assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct as held in the case of Dharamchand L Shah 204 ITR 46. It has been held by the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Porudcts P.Ltd. 322 ITR 158 that there is a difference between a wrong claim and a false claim. It was up to the revenue authorities to accept the claim in the return or not. Merely because the assessee had claimed expenditure which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the revenue, that too by itself, would not attract penalty u/s 271(a)(c ). If the contention of the revenue was accepted, then in the case of every return where the claim was made and not accepted by the A.O. for any reason, the issue would invite penalty u/s 271(a)(c ). That is clearly note the intendment of the legislature. From the facts discussed above, out of the total disallowance of foreign exchange fluctuation loss made, a part disallowance for an amount of Rs.2,70,676/- was upheld being of capital nature and an amount of Rs.11,905/- was upheld for want of relevant details. The debate between the revenue and capital expenditure is a contentions issue having more than one view. If the view of the assessee was not accepted in quantum proceedings that by itself cannot lead to levy of penalty for concealment. Further, if the assessee at the time of hearing could not produce details for an amount of Rs.11,905/-, the same cannot lead to a conclusion regarding filing of inaccurate particulars. In view of the same and the legal position discussed above, the penalty on disallowance of foreign exchange fluctuation loss aggregating Rs.2,82,581/- is hereby deleted."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next