Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.31 seconds)M/S Devsons Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors. on 19 November, 2010
reported in 334 ITR 367 and CIT Vs. Devsons Logistics (P) Ltd. reported
in 329 ITR 483, we hold that the penalty is not imposable on facts and
IT(SS) No12/Del /2013 12
circumstances of this case. In view of the aforesaid reasoning, we uphold
the order of the CIT(A) as correct and in accordance with law, and no
interference is called for. It is ordered accordingly.
Section 158BC in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi vs H.B. Leasing & Finance Ltd. on 4 July, 2013
Therefore, following the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional
High Court in the cases of CIT Vs. H.B. Leasing and Finance Co. Ltd.
Section 260A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 132 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Sri T. Ashok Pai vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore on 18 May, 2007
4.2 Further before discussing the facts of the present case and to
see whether the penalty under section 158BFA{2} is imposable, it is
IT(SS) No12/Del /2013 4
worth re-iterating here the general rules to be followed for the
purpose of leving the penalty as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff vs. CIT (2007) (291 ITR 519 (Se)
and T. Ashoke Pai vs. CIT (2007) (292 ITR 11) (Se).
Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi??? Ix vs Harkaran Das Ved Pal on 12 November, 2008
If the assessee had not furnished its belated related
immediately after the search, the assessee would have definitely
offered the capital gains for taxation in its block return. If that
amount was offered through the block return there would be no
cause of action to impose penalty. Therefore, the only mistake
committed by the assessee was that it acted a little over smart and
over cautions, even though the endeavour of the assessee was not
productive. [para6]
In the facts and circumstances of the case, it was opined that
the levy of penalty was not justified. It was to be deleted. [para8]
In result appeal filed by the assessee was to be allowed. N
4.7 Here, I would also like to take strength from the decision dated
12.11.2008 of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Harkaram Das
Ved Pal (117 Taxman 398) Delhi where Hon'ble Court has held that
the penalty imposable under section 158BFA(2) is not mandatory,
and AD must use his judicial consideration before imposing, the
penalty. The foot notes of the said decision read as under: