Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.21 seconds)
Income-Tax Officer vs Akshay Bhandar. on 31 October, 1989 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Balraj Sahani on 26 February, 1979

7. The assessee took up the matter before the CIT (A) who reproduced the various relevant portion of the assessment order as well as the written submissions of the assessee made before the CIT (A). Thereafter, the CIT (A) noted that the assessee sold goods at Rs. 5,052.78 on credit to M/s. Biswas Bros. of Dharmanagar and the goods were despatched by Rail, the assessee being the consignor and the Dharmanagar party as the consignee. He also noted that in respect of the cash sales of Rs. 24,250, effected on 15-3-1977, the goods were despatched by M/s. Biswas Bros., Dharmanagar and he was both consignor and consignee. The CIT (A) observed that there is sufficient force in the submission of the assessee that in case the goods worth Rs. 24,250 were sold on credit, the same could have been despatched by the assessee along with other goods being the consignor and not by M/s. Biswas Bors., who happened to be both the consignor and consignee in respect of goods sold worth Rs. 24,250. The CIT (A) observed that on the facts of the case and in view of the decision of the Honble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Balraj Sahani [1979] 119 ITR 36 which facts were identical with those of the assessee and in view of the judgment of the Honble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT v. Gajanand Shyamlal [1978] 111 ITR 816, the CIT (A) concluded that the penalty was unjustified and the same was cancelled. Hence, this appeal by the revenue.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Gajanand Shyamlal on 28 June, 1976

15. The facts of the present case were different and distinguishable from those of the Gajanand Shyamlal case (supra) relied on by the CIT (A) in cancelling the penalty in which on the facts of that case, it was found that there was no positive evidence to show that the income had been earned not in the earlier years but in the assessment year concerned and that there was also no evidence to show that it pertained to the concealed income of the assessee firm and not of the partners and the penalty was cancelled. In that decided case the ITO had not accepted the contention of that assessee to spread over certain income over some years. It was observed by the Honble High Court that the assessee Gajanand Shyamlal surrendered amounts for taxation because that assessee was unable to prove the genuineness of the loans and could not conclusively prove these credits and, therefore, the assessee submitted that these amounts might be subject to tax. The Appellate Tribunal found that there was no admission as such that the assessee concealed its income. It was also observed by the Honble High Court that the ITO may charge an income offered by the assessee to be taxed as its income, but such an offer of cash credit to be taxed under section 68 made by the assessee, is by itself not sufficient to lead to the presumption that the assessee admitted that such credit was its income for the relevant previous years and that he had concealed that income.
Gauhati High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 7 - B Islam - Full Document

Gumani Ram Siri Ram vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 14 February, 1973

9. The assessees learned counsel, on the other hand, supports the order of the CIT (A) stressing the point that the ratio of the decisions relied on by the CIT (A) in his order would equally be applicable to the facts of the instant case. According to the assessee, agreeing to make addition would not tantamount to concealment now would attract the penal provisions. It is submitted that surrendering of the above amount was made in good faith and in view of the fact that at that stage, the assessee could not lead evidence or witnesses, in the circumstances stated. On behalf of the assessee, reliance is placed on the decision of the Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Gumani Ram Siri Ram v. CIT [1972] 85 ITR 67 in which amongst other things, it was held therefore penalty was imposed, the ITO had to consider the entirety of the circumstances of the case to show that the assessee had consciously concealed the particulars or had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of income. It was held by the Honble High Court that penalty cannot be imposed merely because the cash deposits were surrendered by the assessee unless there was material on the record to show that the surrendered item was income of the assessee. Further reliance is placed on the decision of the Honble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case as reported in which on the facts of that case it was held that penalty was not justified. It was noted that agreement by the assessee to assessment at higher figure than the returned income is not sufficient for levy of penalty and there was no evidence of concealment of income and as such no penalty can be imposed.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 59 - Full Document

Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Kishan Singh Chand on 16 January, 1975

CIT v. Kishan Singh Chand [1977] 106 ITR 534 in which a similar situation has arisen as mentioned above and it was observed that the assessee agreed to higher rate of profit on the undertaking given by the ITO that he would not impose any penalty. It was observed that even in the absence of any material on record, one has to give regard to normal human conduct and it was reasonable that the assessee would not agree to an enhanced assessment unless he had been motivated by a cogent reason.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Narang & Company on 8 May, 1974

10. The assessees learned counsel has also placed reliance on the decision in the case of CIT v. Narang & Co. [1975] 98 ITR 462 as decided by the Honble Delhi High Court, which the facts were different from those of the present case before us and in which the penalty order was not sustained as the Appellate Tribunal accepted the explanation of the assessee in the penalty proceedings and as the assessee had not received back the goods and there could be no mala fide intention to suppress the value of the goods from the closing stock.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

D. Halappa Sons vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bangalore on 7 August, 1973

Further reference is made to a decision of the Honble Mysore High Court in the case of D. Halappa Sons v. CIT [1974] 95 ITR 542 in which the provisions of the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) as applicable for that year concerned was dealt with. It was held that no penalty could be imposed merely on the concession of the assessee or his representative unless the facts justified such levy.
Karnataka High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Ambica Quarry Works & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 11 December, 1986

In this connection, it would be useful to refer to a decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat AIR 1987 SC 1073 in which on the facts and in the context of that case, it was observed by the Honble Supreme Court that a ratio of a decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 415 - S Mukharji - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay vs Chandulal Keshavlal & Co., Petlad on 17 February, 1960

In this connection, it would be useful to refer to a decision of the Honble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Chandulal [1985] 152 ITR 238/20 Taxman 111 in which on the facts of that case, it was noticed that the Appellate Tribunal had not considered whether the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) was applicable to the facts of the case. Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal as directed by the Honble High Court. Similar is the view of the Honble M. P. High Court in the case of Sayabati Sharma [1982] 12 TLR 165.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 273 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Choudhary Sahu (Dead) By Lrs vs State Of Bihar on 14 December, 1981

20. It may be mentioned that in the earlier preceding paragraph, we have repeatedly stated that the assessee requested the ITO to treat the above amount of Rs. 24,250 as income of the assessee for the assessment year 1977-78, on the basis it had no further evidence to produce and requested the ITO also not to give further opportunity to produce witnesses in support of the earlier contentions. In other words, the assessee has taken the pleading that the above amount was the income of the assessee for the assessment year 1977-78. That pleading of the assessee is binding. Of course, we have to take the entire pleading as a whole keeping in view the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Choudhary Sahu v. State of Bihar AIR 1982 SC 98 and also in another decision in the case of Mahendra Manilal Nanavati v. Sushila Mahendra Nanavati AIR 1965 SC 364 as decided by the Honble Supreme Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 29 - R B Misra - Full Document
1   2 Next