Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.25 seconds)

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Zoom Communication Pvt Ltd on 24 May, 2010

2. CIT Vs Zoom Communication (P.) Ltd. [191 Taxman 179 (Delhi)/[2010] 327 ITR 510 (Delhi)/[2010] 233 CTR 465] where Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that If assessee makes a claim which is not only incorrect in law, but is also wholly without any basis and explanation furnished by him for making such- a claim is. not found to be bona fide, Explanation 1 to section 271 (1 )(c) would come into play and assessee will be liable to penalty
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 505 - V K Jain - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shree Raghunath Cotton Ginning And Oil ... on 26 October, 2004

i) "CIT & Anr. Vs. M/s SSA's Emerald Meadows - 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - Karnataka High Court has held that Tribunal has correctly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with 8 Section 271(1)(c) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)© of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) (7) TMI 620- Karanataka High Court.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1430 - A K Mittal - Full Document
1   2 Next