Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.27 seconds)Income Tax Rules, 1962
C. A. Abraham, Uppoottil, Kottayam vs The Income-Tax Officer, Kottayam And ... on 29 November, 1960
Now as held in C.A. Abraham v Income-tax Officer (supra) penalty is imposed as a part of the machinery for assessment of tax liabilty and the process of assessment includes taking steps for imposition of penalty. The "proceedings for assessment" within the meaning of Section 297(2)(a) would, therefore, plainly include imposition of penalty and if in the course of the assessment proceeding the Income-tax Officer was satisfied that the assessee had committed any of the defaults enumerated in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 28(1), penalty could be imposed on the assessee under that section by reason of Section 297(2)(a).
S.C. Magavi, Haveri vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mysore on 11 August, 1966
This would appear to be clear on principle and no authority is necessary in support of it but if any authority were needed with a view to fortifying the conclusion, it may be found in the decision of the Mysore High Court in S.C. Magavi, Haveri v. Commissioner of Income-tax . If, therefore, the order of penalty had been made by the Income-tax Officer under Section 28(1)(c) it would have been unassailable by reason of Section 297(2)(a) read with Section 28(1)(c).
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Khemchand Ramdas on 7 April, 1938
In the present case the return was admittedly filed by the assessee prior to 1st April 1962 and the case was, therefore, governed by Section 297(2)(a) and under that section proceedings for the assessment of the assessee could be taken and continued as if the new Act had not been passed. The scope and ambit of the expression "assessment" in Section 297(2)(a) came to be considered by the Supreme Court in the recent unreported decision in Civil Appeal No. 1421 of 1966 Kalawati Devi Harlalka v. Commissioner of Income-tax West Bengal, and in that case the Supreme Court, after referring to the decision of the Privy Council in Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Khemchand Ramdal (1938) 6 I.T.R. 414 and its decisions in A.N. Lakshman Sheppy v. Income-tax Officer Ernakulam , C. A Abraham v. Income-tax Officer and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Patiala Cement Co. Ltd. (1952) 32 I.T.R. 383 held that the word "assessment" in Section 297(2)(a) was used in a comprehensive sense so as to include the whole procedure for ascertaining and imposing liability upon the tax-payer.
Section 34 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 271 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 274 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
A. N. Lakshmana Shenoy vs The Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam ... on 28 April, 1958
In the present case the return was admittedly filed by the assessee prior to 1st April 1962 and the case was, therefore, governed by Section 297(2)(a) and under that section proceedings for the assessment of the assessee could be taken and continued as if the new Act had not been passed. The scope and ambit of the expression "assessment" in Section 297(2)(a) came to be considered by the Supreme Court in the recent unreported decision in Civil Appeal No. 1421 of 1966 Kalawati Devi Harlalka v. Commissioner of Income-tax West Bengal, and in that case the Supreme Court, after referring to the decision of the Privy Council in Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Khemchand Ramdal (1938) 6 I.T.R. 414 and its decisions in A.N. Lakshman Sheppy v. Income-tax Officer Ernakulam , C. A Abraham v. Income-tax Officer and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Patiala Cement Co. Ltd. (1952) 32 I.T.R. 383 held that the word "assessment" in Section 297(2)(a) was used in a comprehensive sense so as to include the whole procedure for ascertaining and imposing liability upon the tax-payer.
Kalawati Devi Harlalka vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 1 May, 1967
In the present case the return was admittedly filed by the assessee prior to 1st April 1962 and the case was, therefore, governed by Section 297(2)(a) and under that section proceedings for the assessment of the assessee could be taken and continued as if the new Act had not been passed. The scope and ambit of the expression "assessment" in Section 297(2)(a) came to be considered by the Supreme Court in the recent unreported decision in Civil Appeal No. 1421 of 1966 Kalawati Devi Harlalka v. Commissioner of Income-tax West Bengal, and in that case the Supreme Court, after referring to the decision of the Privy Council in Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Khemchand Ramdal (1938) 6 I.T.R. 414 and its decisions in A.N. Lakshman Sheppy v. Income-tax Officer Ernakulam , C. A Abraham v. Income-tax Officer and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Patiala Cement Co. Ltd. (1952) 32 I.T.R. 383 held that the word "assessment" in Section 297(2)(a) was used in a comprehensive sense so as to include the whole procedure for ascertaining and imposing liability upon the tax-payer.