The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-5 vs Liquid Investment And Trading Co. Pvt. ... on 15 February, 2019
A) Order dated 5th October, 2010 passed by this Court in CIT
Vs. Liquid Investment Ltd (supra) :-
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.29 seconds)Cit vs Thomson Press India Ltd on 31 July, 2001
B) Order dated 3rd March, 2014 passed by this Court in CIT Vs.
Thomson Press India Ltd(supra) :-
Section 274 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 14A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 153A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 260A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Ssa'S Emerald Meadows on 5 August, 2016
12. Even otherwise we have also perused the show cause notice
issued by the Ld. assessing officer under section 274 of the income
tax act and find that for both the years the Ld. assessing officer
has not cancelled one of the charge on the assessee. We have also
perused the assessment orders for both the years wherein the Ld.
assessing officer has also not levied any specific charge on the
additions made but has simply stated that he is satisfied that the
penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) should be initiated
against the assessee company. Therefore we find that there is no
specific charge levied by the assessing officer in the assessment
orders as well as in the penalty notices but has levied the penalty
on the assessee holding that assessee has furnished inaccurate
particulars of his income. Therefore as held by Hon'ble Karnataka
ITA Nos.620/2019 & 622/2019 Page 7 of 10
High Court in case of CIT versus SSA Emerald Meadows in 396
ITR 538 which held so and against which the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has dismissed the special leave petition of the revenue in 73
Taxmann.com 248, we also hold that when in the show cause
notice the Ld. assessing officer has failed to create a specific
charge and which has also not been specified in the assessment
order the penalty cannot be levied under section 271(1)(c) of the
act. The Ld. departmental representative could not show us any
other contrary decision on this issue. In the result on this ground
also the penalty deserves to be cancelled.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Divine Leasing And Finance Ltd. [Along ... on 16 November, 2006
11. It is pertinent to note that this Court in similar cases [CIT Vs. Liquid
Investment Ltd, ITA 240/2009, CIT Vs H B Leasing & Finance Co. Ltd.
I.T.A. No. 1612/2010 and CIT Vs. Thomson Press India Ltd, ITA
426,440/2013] has upheld the deletion of the penalty on the same ground i.e.
the fact that appeals were admitted proved that the issue was debatable.
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Narayan Builders on 15 November, 2016
This appeal being CIT vs. Nayan Builders
and Developers [(2014) 368 ITR 722] was not entertained by
this Court. It upheld the view of the Tribunal that the imposition
of penalty was not justified as admission of appeal in quantum
proceeding on this issue as substantial question of law was
proof enough of the issue being debatable.
The Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs M/S. Advaith Motors Pvt Ltd., on 12 June, 2018
Similarly for assessment year 2005-06 the Hon'ble High Court has
admitted the appeal of the assessee on the ground that whether the
ITA Nos.620/2019 & 622/2019 Page 4 of 10
coordinate bench is correct in confirming the additions made by
the Ld. assessing officer by rejecting the books of accounts under
section 145 (3) of the act or not. Hence it is apparent that appeal
of the assessee has been admitted on the issue of invocation of the
provisions of section l45 (3) as well as on the merits of the
addition. Therefore, it is apparent that for both the assessment
years the Hon'ble High Court has admitted the appeal of the
assessee on merits as well as on legal grounds. The Hon'ble
Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. Advaita Estate
Development Private Limited in ITA No. 1498 of 2014 dated
17/2/2017 has dealt with the issue that when the Hon'ble high
court admits the appeal of the assessee whether on such
additions/disallowance, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the act
can be levied or not as under:-