Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.22 seconds)Section 154 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 217 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
B. Thangammal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 21 December, 1993
11. So, a reading of Clause (c) clearly shows that the assessee should have made disclosure of income and should have paid the tax on the income so disclosed. There is no doubt that, on the facts and circumstances of this case, it has not been done. On the other hand, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be that the provisions of the Act do not fix the point of time at which the tax to be paid and as such the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 273A of the Act. I am unable to agree with the contention of learned counsel. When Parliament has clearly enacted the provision in Section 273A of the Act, as extracted above, I do not find any difficulty to hold that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 273A of the Act. That is the view taken by the two learned judges of the Madras High Court in B. Thangammal v. CIT and S. M. Ziaddin v. CIT [1993] 203 ITR 136.
Parshottam Nagindas And Ors. vs B.R. Adwalpalkar, Commissioner Of ... on 26 March, 1995
13. However, a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court has struck a different note in Parshottam Nagindas v. B. R. Adwalpalhar [1996] 218 ITR 392. The Division Bench while considering Section 273A of the Act has held that it is a beneficial provision and should be interpreted in a liberal manner. The Division Bench has held at page 401 as follows :
S.M. Ziaddin vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 24 September, 1991
11. So, a reading of Clause (c) clearly shows that the assessee should have made disclosure of income and should have paid the tax on the income so disclosed. There is no doubt that, on the facts and circumstances of this case, it has not been done. On the other hand, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be that the provisions of the Act do not fix the point of time at which the tax to be paid and as such the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 273A of the Act. I am unable to agree with the contention of learned counsel. When Parliament has clearly enacted the provision in Section 273A of the Act, as extracted above, I do not find any difficulty to hold that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 273A of the Act. That is the view taken by the two learned judges of the Madras High Court in B. Thangammal v. CIT and S. M. Ziaddin v. CIT [1993] 203 ITR 136.
Union Of India & Anr vs M/S. Jesus Sales Corporation on 26 March, 1996
As held by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Jesus Sales Coloration , failure to give an opportunity to the petitioner in my view will not vitiate the order passed under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be that since the Income-tax Act does not pin-point the time at which the tax should be paid, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit under Section 273A of the Act. I am not able to agree the contention of learned counsel as the contention is against the statutory provisions contained in the Act. When Parliament has clearly set out the conditions precedent to make an application under Section 273A of the Income-tax Act and when that condition precedent is not fulfilled, I do not think either the order passed under Section 273A of the Act is vitiated or the order passed under Section 154 of the Act is erroneous in law. There are no merits in these petitions.