Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)Section 50C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
C.I.T.,Bangalore vs M/S.K.Raheja Hotels & Estate Pvt.Ltd. on 29 October, 2014
Thus,
14 ITA No. 207/JP/2023
Subhash Chand Patni vs. ITO, Jaipur
it is not disputed by the ld. DR representing the revenue that the
amount after reducing the consideration the sustained amount is on
account of the stamp duty valuation and there are various decision
of the co-ordinate bench of the tribunal holding the there cannot be
levy of penalty on the amount sustained on account of the provision
of section 50C of the Act, this view of the tribunal is also confirmed
by the Honorable HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY in the case of
Commissioner of Income-tax v. Fortune Hotels and Estates (P.)
Ltd. The relevant finding of the high court is as under:
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 127 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd. on 7 April, 2008
2. That in the case of CIT, Delhi vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd (reported in
306-ITR-42 Delhi HC) it has been held that "there is no prohibition on the
powers of the Tribunal to entertain an additional ground which according
to Tribunal arises in the matter and for the just decision of the case."
The Humble appellant with utmost respect request to kindly allow the
additional ground in the interest of equity and justice.
C.I.T.,Ahmedabad vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt.Ltd on 17 March, 2010
- ITAT Jaipur Bench) that Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench while deciding
above case has written treatise on the subject and after relying on
several case laws and after relying in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance
Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (322-ITR-158) has held that where the
8 ITA No. 207/JP/2023
Subhash Chand Patni vs. ITO, Jaipur
information given by the assessee is not found to be incorrect the
assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of
income for the purpose of levying the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Hindustan Steel Ltd vs State Of Orissa on 4 August, 1969
(iii). Hindustan Steel Limited Vs. State of Orissa (Supreme Court -
1972 - 83 - ITR
page no. 26) wherein it has been held that levying penalty
u/s.271(1)(c) the AO has to prove that assessee has consciously made
concealment or inaccurate particulars of his income. In the given
circumstances only the technical opinion has changed resulting into
change in quantum of tax method of tax but nowhere is could be proved
that concealment taken place and thus no penalty to be levied.