Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 42 (0.33 seconds)Section 253 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Amruta Enterprises vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 27 June, 2002
9. The basic issue which falls for consideration before us is whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is relatable to assessed income and thus covered by Clauses (a) to (c) of Sub-section (6) of Section 253 or whether it falls in the residuary Clause (d). Shri K.R. Manjani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee argued that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) falls in the residuary Clause (d) inasmuch as it has no relation with the assessed income. According to the learned counsel, the legislative intention in introducing Clause (d) by the Finance Act, 1999 is to specifically provide that, in case of appeals which involve penalties under various sections of the IT Act like Sections 269D, 271B, 271D and 271 etc., fee of Rs. 500 would be paid by an aggrieved assessee while filing an appeal. He further added that since such appeals do not involve the question of assessment of income, the legislature de-linked the levy of filing fee in this residuary group from the quantum of total income computed by the AO. Learned counsel strongly pleaded that provision involving the amount of fee to be paid by the assessee has to be liberally construed and the assessee should get the benefit of any ambiguity in the construction of the provisions contained under Section 253(6). Shri Manjani placed reliance on the two decisions of the Tribunal, namely, Amruta Enterprises v. Dy. CIT (supra) and Maini & Co. v. Asstt. CIT (supra).
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 271D in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 271B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
D. M. Manasvi vs C.I.T., Gujarat Ii, Ahmedabad on 19 September, 1972
(ii) D.M. Manasvi v. CIT (1972) 86 ITR 557 (SC).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/S. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. on 8 October, 1998
The close nexus of assessment and concealment penalty is further reflected in the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Del) wherein Their Lordships have cancelled the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on the ground that the assessment order did not record the satisfaction of the AO for initiating penalty proceedings for concealment. In support of this decision, Their Lordships have placed reliance on the following two decisions of the apex Court.