Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.25 seconds)The Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2006
The Rajasthan Finance Act, 1961
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 271 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Gulamrasul M. Pathan vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 22 August, 1995
14. During the course of hearing, the learned authorised representative of the assessees referred to some other decisions in the paper book such as Gulammsul M. Pathan v. Assn. CIT (supra); Amir Chand v. ITO (1994) 48 TTJ (Del) 308 : (1994) 49 ITD 606 (Del); Mahendm Chimanlal Shah v. Asstt. CIT (1994) 49 TTJ (Ahd) 677 and the decision of Tribunal, Mumbai, in ITA No. 1977/Bora/1994 dt. 27th Sept., 1999 in the case of Geeta Tulsidas.
Amir Chand vs Income-Tax Officer on 7 December, 1993
14. During the course of hearing, the learned authorised representative of the assessees referred to some other decisions in the paper book such as Gulammsul M. Pathan v. Assn. CIT (supra); Amir Chand v. ITO (1994) 48 TTJ (Del) 308 : (1994) 49 ITD 606 (Del); Mahendm Chimanlal Shah v. Asstt. CIT (1994) 49 TTJ (Ahd) 677 and the decision of Tribunal, Mumbai, in ITA No. 1977/Bora/1994 dt. 27th Sept., 1999 in the case of Geeta Tulsidas.
Mahendra Chimanlal Shah vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 24 May, 1994
14. During the course of hearing, the learned authorised representative of the assessees referred to some other decisions in the paper book such as Gulammsul M. Pathan v. Assn. CIT (supra); Amir Chand v. ITO (1994) 48 TTJ (Del) 308 : (1994) 49 ITD 606 (Del); Mahendm Chimanlal Shah v. Asstt. CIT (1994) 49 TTJ (Ahd) 677 and the decision of Tribunal, Mumbai, in ITA No. 1977/Bora/1994 dt. 27th Sept., 1999 in the case of Geeta Tulsidas.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Calcutta Credit Corporation Ltd. on 21 November, 1984
7. The learned CIT(A) also considered the judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Calcutta Credit Corporation (1987) 166 ITR 29 (Cal) and of Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Universal Printers (1991) 188 ITR 206 (All) which had been relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessees. The learned CIT(A) found that both the cases were distinguishable on facts. In both the cases the addition made related to cash credits. The assessees had not admitted that the alleged cash credits represented their unaccounted income. The assessees were also able to put across explanations about source of cash credit. On such facts the Hon'ble High Courts held that where two opinions on the same facts were possible or explanation offered by the assessee was rejected, that by itself would not justify imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c).