Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (1.65 seconds)Section 271 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
M/S. The Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala ... on 10 February, 2000
ITA. Nos. 1178 to 1184/Mum/2016
CO. Nos. 250 to256/Mum/2017
A.Ys. 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06
, 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2007-08
Therefore, for all the above reasons, non-striking off of the
irrelevant clause in the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of
the Act cannot be said to be a mere wrong labelling of the
section or some mistake of the nature that was before the
Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Mithila Motors (P.)
Limited (supra).
N.N. Subramania Iyer vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 14 June, 1973
14. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, in our view,
the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 274 r.w.s.
271(1)(c) of the Act dated 10.12.2010 is untenable as it suffers
from the vice of non-application of mind having regard to the
ratio of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Dilip N. Shroff (supra) as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble
Bombay High Court in the case of Shri Samson Perinchery
(supra). Thus, on this count itself the penalty imposed u/s
271(1)(c) of the Act is liable to be deleted. We hold so. Since
the Shri Dhanvinder Bindra penalty has been deleted on the
preliminary point, the other arguments raised by the appellant
are not being dealt with."
Section 132 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 133A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Sushil Kumar Sarad Kumar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 26 September, 1997
13. The learned D.R. before us vehemently contended by
referring to various case laws which we will discuss why the
order of the CIT(A) should be reversed. Firstly he relied on the
order of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sushil
Kumar Sharad Kumar vs. CIT 232 ITR 588. In that case we
noted that the penalty has been levied for concealment of
particulars of income. The Hon'ble High Court confirmed the
levy of penalty as there is evidence of higher expenditure
incurred by the assessee and during the penalty proceedings the
assessee did not lead any evidence to prove that the expenditure
incurred by him for household were low. Therefore under these
facts the Hon'ble High Court confirmed the penalty. This
decision, in our opinion, is not applicable to the facts of the case
before us. In the case of the assessee, we noted, the AO had not
levied penalty for concealment of particulars of income.