Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (1.93 seconds)Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Fazilka Dabwali Tpt. Co. Pvt. Ltd. on 24 August, 2004
Placing reliance on the ratio laid down in CIT Vs. Fazilka Dabwali Tpt. Co.Ltd. (supra) the CIT (Appeals) held that the burden of proving that there was no concealment of income lies on the appellant and not on the Revenue. Dismissing the appeal of the assessee the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was confirmed by the CIT (Appeals).
M/S. K.P. Madhusudhanan vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cochin on 21 August, 2001
In view thereof and applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CIT Vs. Fazilka Dabwali Tpt. Co. Ltd.[178 ITR 656 (P&H)] and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.P.Madhusudanan Vs. CIT [251 ITR 99 (SC)], the assessee was held to have concealed the particulars of income and accordingly penalty of Rs.1,97,309/- was levied for assessment year 1996-97. The CIT (Appeals) observed that it was on record that the plot on which the building was constructed belongs to the assessee and no evidence was led before the Assessing Officer that the contributions were made by the family members. The CIT (Appeals) further observed that "it is therefore, noticed that it is not a case of estimation but investment made in the building for which no sources were explained by the appellant".
Section 139 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 144 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 154 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Hari Gopal Chopra vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 24 September, 1997
ii) Hari Gopal Singh Vs. CIT 258 ITR 85 (P&H):- In this case the assessee has filed return on no account basis and additions were made by estimating the sales.
Section 271 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay vs K.B.H.M.D.H. Bhiwandiwalla & Co. on 17 December, 1968
iv) CIT Vs. D.K.B & Co. 243 ITR 618:- In this case the assessee has offered additional income after search. The Hon'ble Court observed that in the penalty proceedings it is for the department to consider the explanation of the assessee on merits and record a finding whether such explanation is acceptable or not.
1