Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.29 seconds)Section 271 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Jamunadas Mannalal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 21 May, 1984
9. We shall first refer to the decisions which favour the Revenue. The decisions of the Patna High Court are : Jamunadas Mannalal v. CIT [1985] 152 ITR 261 [FB] and Jamunadas Mannalal v. CIT [1987] 164 ITR 66. It has been held therein that penalty under Section 271(1)(a) can be levied for delay in filing the return even after charging interest under Section 139(8). Obviously, these decisions proceed on the basis that in such a situation, where no tax is found due after adjusting the tax deducted at source or deposited as advance tax, interest also is chargeable under Section 139(8) in addition to the penalty under Section 271(1)(a).
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Murugan Timber Depot on 23 March, 1977
The earlier decision in Kandaswami Wvg. Factory and Co.'s case [1977] 110 ITR 84 (Mad) has been distinguished in the last decision and it was held that where the assessee had paid advance tax under Chapter XVII-C in excess of the tax assessed, there was no amount on which two per cent, of the tax can be calculated for the purpose of Section 271(1)(a)(i)(b), This is the view taken in Murugan Timber Depot's case [1978] 113 ITR 99. The view of the Madras High Court, therefore, is against the Revenue.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Priya Gopal Bishoyee on 17 July, 1980
A decision of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Priya Gopal Bishoyee [1981] 127 ITR 778, is also distinguishable on facts. In that case, the tax payable by the assessee even as a registered firm was paid more than 2 1/2 years after filing the return which itself was delayed by over 15 months. Obviously, for this reason, the "assessed tax" was not nil and it was feasible to calculate the penalty under Section 271(1)(a)(i)(b) taking into account the tax payable by the assessee as a registered firm ; and then by virtue of Section 271(2), quantification of penalty was made on the larger amount of tax payable by the assessee treating it as an unregistered firm. The Calcutta High Court decision also does not, therefore, support the Revenue's contention that even where the "assessed tax" is nil, penalty can be imposed on the assessee under Section 271(1)(a)(i)(b).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Etc. vs Maskara Tea Estate on 2 December, 1980
12. These decisions are CIT v. Maskara Tea Estate [1981] 130 ITR 955 (Gauhati) ; CIT v. Ganesh Das Sreeram (Firm) [1983] 141 ITR 946 (Gauhati) and P. Venkata Krishnayya Naidu and Son v. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 545 (AP). The view taken in these decisions was that the legal fiction in Section 271(2) was limited to the quantification of penalty on a registered firm, if any penalty was leviable on it under Section 271(1)(a) ; and that where the "assessed tax" on a registered firm was nil, no penalty could be levied under Section 271(1)(a) for failure to furnish the return in time.
Ganesh Dass Sreeram, Etc. A vs Income Tax Officer, 'A' Ward, Shillong ... on 30 October, 1987
In view of the above Supreme Court decision in Ganesh Dass Sreeram's case [1988] 169 ITR 221, it cannot be doubted that no interest can be recovered under Section 139(8) in such a situation. Accordingly, the assumption on which these decisions proceed is no longer available. It has also been held that Sub-section (2) of Section 271 enables the registered firm to be treated as an unregistered firm and, therefore, penalty can be calculated on the basis of tax liability on an unregistered firm. We have already indicated our reasons for taking the view that Sub-section (2) of Section 271 is not available for this purpose. With respect, we are unable to concur with the view taken in these decisions of the Patna High Court for the reasons already given.
P. Venkata Krishnayya Naidu And Sons vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Andhra ... on 12 June, 1984
12. These decisions are CIT v. Maskara Tea Estate [1981] 130 ITR 955 (Gauhati) ; CIT v. Ganesh Das Sreeram (Firm) [1983] 141 ITR 946 (Gauhati) and P. Venkata Krishnayya Naidu and Son v. CIT [1984] 150 ITR 545 (AP). The view taken in these decisions was that the legal fiction in Section 271(2) was limited to the quantification of penalty on a registered firm, if any penalty was leviable on it under Section 271(1)(a) ; and that where the "assessed tax" on a registered firm was nil, no penalty could be levied under Section 271(1)(a) for failure to furnish the return in time.