Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.30 seconds)
Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Solar Chemicals (P.) Ltd. on 28 August, 1984 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Net Ram Ram Swarup on 15 October, 1971

8. On the precise question as to whether an order imposing penalty could be passed on the basis of an admission of the assessee making a voluntary disclosure of his income, there seems to be an apparent divergence of opinion among various High Courts. We are, however, bound by the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Net Ram Ram Swarup [1973] 88 ITR 213 (All).
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 13 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Western Automobiles (India) vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 17 December, 1976

The learned judges of the Madras High Court in taking the aforesaid view relied on a decision of the Bombay High Court in Western Automobiles (India) v. CIT [1978] 112 ITR 1048, where the decision of the Supreme Court in Anwar Ali's case [1970] 76 ITR 696, was distinguished by the Bombay High Court by observing that that decision was not applicable to a case where the addition was not by a mere rejection of the explanation of the assessee but on account of an admission of the assessee that the amounts may be added as its income. It was also held by the Bombay High Court (p. 1056):
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 67 - V D Tulzapurkar - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Vinaychand Harilal on 17 October, 1978

6. Reliance was also placed by counsel for the respondent on the decision of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Vinaychand Harilal [1979] 120 ITR 752. The facts of that case were that for the assessment year I 967-68, the assessee did not include a sum of Rs, 88,455 being the amount for which he had encashed certain demand drafts. His explanation that this amount belonged to the HUF of which he was the karta and not himself was not accepted by the ITO who included the said amount in the total income of the assessee under Section 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. The ITO subsequently initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) against the assessee. In the appeal against the assessment before the AAC, the assessee conceded that the amounts invested in the purchase of demand drafts belonged to the assessee and may be assessed in his hands. On its basis the AAC proceeded on the footing that the peak amount of Rs. 60,000 should be treated as income of the assessee for the year in question. In penalty proceedings, the assessee, however, denied that the addition agreed to by him represented his concealed income and that he had made the admission only to avoid lengthy litigation and contended that no penalty was imposable because the case against the assessee was the result of disbelieving the assessee's version regarding his income. His contention was rejected by the IAC and penalty was imposed. The appeal of the assessee was, however, allowed by the Tribunal and the order levying penalty was set aside. On a reference, the Gujarat High Court took the view that the admission of the assessee before the AAC referred to above did not amount to admission of the concealment of the income of the relevant year and was not sufficient to levy penalty on the assessee and that the Revenue must prove that the receipt of the amount in dispute constituted income of the assessee for the relevant year. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Anwar Ali [1970] 76 ITR 696.
Gujarat High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 51 - Full Document

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

7. Gumani Ram Siri Ram v. CIT [1972] 85 ITR 67 (P & H) was also a case where the assessee had made a statement surrendering a certain squared up amount and on its basis an order of assessment was passed. Subsequently, penalty was also imposed on the assessee. It was held in that case by the Punjab High Court that penalty could not be levied merely because the cash deposits were surrendered by the assessee, unless there was material on the record to show that the surrendered item was his income. A similar view was taken by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Addl.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 59 - Full Document
1   2 Next