Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.50 seconds)
Kirtane And Pandit vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 19 April, 2000 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Late G.D. Naidu And Ors. (By Lrs. G.D. ... on 28 November, 1985

3. In response to the show-cause notice, it was explained by the assessee that there was no concealment of income on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. According to the assessee, mere addition to the taxable income was not sufficient for levy of penalty for concealment. The reliance was placed on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court inHarak Chand Phoolchand Jain v. CIT [1984] 146 ITR 25 : [1983] 15 Taxman 131, CIT v. G.D. Naidu [1987] 165 ITR 63 (Mad.)
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 87 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat I vs Lakhdhir Lalji on 17 September, 1971

5. The Ld. counsel for the assessee has assailed the order of CIT(A) by raising various submissions viz. - (1) The penalty levied is illegal since proceedings were initiated on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income but the penalty has been levied for different charge i.e. concealment of particulars of income. Reliance was placed on the decision of Gujarat High Court as CIT v. Lakhdhir Lalji [1972] 85 ITR 77, (2) There was no mala fide intention in forming new partnership firm as two different firms can be formed-having same constitution and same nature of business.
Gujarat High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 92 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Cement Marketing Co. Of India Ltd vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Sales-Tax, ... on 30 October, 1979

Further reliance was placed on the decision of Supreme Court reported as Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. v. Asstt. CST [1980] 124 ITR 15 : 4 Taxman 44. for the preposition that where the assessee does not include particular item in the taxable income under bona fide belief that he is not liable so to include it, it would not be right to condemn the return as false return, (3) The expenses incurred by the assessee firm were reimbursed by the new firm, (4) The decision of AAC was not challenged before the Tribunal because of insignificant amount of tax involved. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn on this account, (5) The amount was offered in the revised return under Section 148 with a view to avoid litigation and insignificant amount of tax, (6) The new firm was ultimately found to be genuine firm and registration was accordingly granted for A.Y. 1983-84 onwards and (7) The Assessing Officer was not justified in applying the Explanation under Section 271 (1)(c) as existed prior to 1 -4-1975. In fact, the Explanation applicable to the year under consideration has not been invoked by the Assessing Officer and accordingly the onus was on the revenue to prove the concealment by bringing on record the positive evidence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 165 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs P.M. Shah on 9 November, 1992

In view of the Bombay High Court judgments in the case of P.M. Shah(supra) and in the case of Dharamchand L. Shah (supra), the penalty has to be justified under the main provisions of Section 271(1)(c), if the Explanation to the main provisions has not been invoked. In such cases burden to prove the charge of concealment lies on the revenue and the penalty cannot be levied merely on the ground that the addition in quantum proceedings has been sustained. In the present case it appears from the order of penalty that Assessing Officer had invoked the provisions of old Explanation applicable upto 31-3-1975 inasmuch as he has shifted the onus on the assessee on the ground that the returned income was less than 80% of the assessed income. None of the Explanations effective from 1-4-1976 has been invoked by the Assessing Officer. In our opinion, the Assessing Officer had proceeded on wrong footing by applying the non-existent Explanation and consequently had wrongly shifted the onus to the assessee. In the absence of any Explanation on the statute relevant for the year under consideration being invoked by the Assessing Officer, it is held that justification of penalty has to be seen with reference to the main provisions of Section 271(1)(c) in view of the aforesaid two judgments of the Bombay High Court. Thus it is further held that onus was on the department to prove the charge of concealment.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 57 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Jiwan Lal Shah on 22 May, 1975

9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that revenue has not been able to prove the charge of concealment by furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Mere addition in the assessment proceedings is not sufficient to justify the levy of penalty as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Anwar Ali[1970] 76 ITR 696 and followed by Bombay High Court in the case of Dharamchand L. Shah (supra). The fact that the partnership of the new firm has been found to be valid one for A.Yrs. 1983-84 and onwards is a factor which goes in favour of the assessee. Considering the entire facts discussed by us, it is held that revenue has not been able to discharge its onus to prove the charge specified under main provisions of Section 27 l(1)(c). Accordingly, the order of CIT(A) is quashed; and the penalty sustained by him is hereby deleted.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 56 - Full Document

Sir Shadilal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 30 April, 1982

Thereafter the registration was allowed by the Assessing Officer but the fact remained that registration was allowed in respect of the same partnership. In our opinion, if a particular partnership has been accepted as valid for subsequent years, it cannot be said that there was no valid partnership for the year under consideration. Merely the order of AAC for the year under consideration was not challenged on account of insignificant tax involvement, no adverse inference can be drawn. As far as offering of income of the new firm in the revised return is concerned, no adverse inference can be drawn in view of Supreme Court decision in Sir Shadilal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 168 ITR 705 : 33 Taxman 460A.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 274 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax West Bengal vs Anwar Ali on 29 April, 1970

9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that revenue has not been able to prove the charge of concealment by furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Mere addition in the assessment proceedings is not sufficient to justify the levy of penalty as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Anwar Ali[1970] 76 ITR 696 and followed by Bombay High Court in the case of Dharamchand L. Shah (supra). The fact that the partnership of the new firm has been found to be valid one for A.Yrs. 1983-84 and onwards is a factor which goes in favour of the assessee. Considering the entire facts discussed by us, it is held that revenue has not been able to discharge its onus to prove the charge specified under main provisions of Section 27 l(1)(c). Accordingly, the order of CIT(A) is quashed; and the penalty sustained by him is hereby deleted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 577 - A N Grover - Full Document

Harak Chand Phoolchand Jain vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 11 March, 1983

3. In response to the show-cause notice, it was explained by the assessee that there was no concealment of income on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. According to the assessee, mere addition to the taxable income was not sufficient for levy of penalty for concealment. The reliance was placed on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court inHarak Chand Phoolchand Jain v. CIT [1984] 146 ITR 25 : [1983] 15 Taxman 131, CIT v. G.D. Naidu [1987] 165 ITR 63 (Mad.)
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Faizanuddin - Full Document
1   2 Next