Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shankerlal Naraindas on 28 August, 1969

Indra And Co. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 19 November, 1971

9. The second question need not detain us long. After the reference, a similar question arose in Commissioner of Income-Tax, Rajasthan v. Shankerlal Naraindas 76 ITR 642. In that case, a Bench of this Court to which on c of us was a party, after reviewing a number of cases, held that the penalty to be imposed is to be calculated in accordance with the provisions of Section 271(1)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 13 May, 1983

21. It is not necessary to consider the matter any further because the view taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and by a Division Bench of this court in Shankerlal Naraindas' case [1970] 76 ITR 642 (Raj), in respect of the interpretation of Section 297(2)(g) of the new Act, has also been taken by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Jain Bros. v. Union of India [1970] 77 ITR 107, wherein their Lordships observed as under (p. 117):
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Venichand Maganlal on 29 August, 1969

In Reference No. 31/66 (Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shankarlal Naraindas, [1970] 76 I.T.R. 642 (Raj.)) made by the said Tribunal we have held that for determining the quantum of penalty, the provision contained in Section 271(1)(i) of the new Act is applicable, in a case where assessment of an assessee is made under Section 271(1)(a) of the new Act. For the reasons given in the judgment, we are unable to accept the view expressed by the Tribunal that the quantum of penalty should be in accordance with the law in force at the time when the default was committed.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 10 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1