Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.56 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
D. M. Manasvi vs C.I.T., Gujarat Ii, Ahmedabad on 19 September, 1972
By this decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of D.M. Manasvi v. CIT (1969) 72 ITR 17 (Guj) was affirmed. In that case, the AO in the assessment order had mentioned as follows :.
S. Sivakumar vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 19 February, 1997
8. Referring to the contention on behalf of the assessee that she was lured to make a declaration on the assurance that no penalty was imposed, the learned Departmental Representative invited my attention to the assessment order in which it is clearly mentioned that the appellant was carrying on the legal profession besides being the managing director of the company namely, Hynoup Food and Oil Industries Ltd. As per the instructions of the CBDT, the authorised officer of the search is under instruction to invite the attention of the assessee to the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) for making a declaration in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the contention advanced on behalf of the assessee that she did not understand the implications of the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) is not acceptable. According to the learned Departmental Representative, what the authorised officer has promised was non-imposition of penalty in respect of declaration covered under Expln. 5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The officer had not given the assurance that no penalty would be imposed in respect of any amount disclosed which may not be covered under Expln. 5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, According to the learned Departmental Representative, the assessee's counsel having himself conceded before the CIT(A) that Expln. 5 to Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act was not attracted in this case, the question asked during the course of search was of no consequence. Relying upon the decision of the Madras Bench of the Tribunal in the case of S. Sivakumar v. Asstt. CIT (1998) 64 ITD 149 (Mad), it was contended that in any case, there cannot be any estoppel against the statute.
M/S Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors on 12 December, 1978
Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1979) 118 ITR 326 (SC) as also decision of the Madras High Court in the case of H.V. Venugopal Chettiar v. CIT (1985) 153 ITR 376 (Mad). It was further contended that the assessee was found to have concealed the income which was not disclosed in the original return, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act was attracted in this case.
H.V. Venugopal Chettiar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 4 July, 1983
Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1979) 118 ITR 326 (SC) as also decision of the Madras High Court in the case of H.V. Venugopal Chettiar v. CIT (1985) 153 ITR 376 (Mad). It was further contended that the assessee was found to have concealed the income which was not disclosed in the original return, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act was attracted in this case.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central) vs Jai Narain Ram Chander on 27 August, 1980
9. The learned Departmental Representative further contended that the contention on behalf of the assessee that penalty proceedings had not been properly initiated is also not well-founded. It was contended that it was well-settled principle of law that ITNS 150 is part of the assessment order. Whereas it is necessary for the AO to record a satisfaction in the course of the assessment proceedings, it is not necessary that the same should be incorporated in the assessment order. Therefore, without verifying the record, one cannot say that the AO had not validly initiated the penalty proceedings. It was further contended that the assessee had not raised this issue before the Revenue authorities. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of the Allahabad. High Court in the case of CIT v. Jai Narain (2000) 245 ITR 151 (All).
Rambhai L. Patel vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 9 August, 2001
10. The learned counsel for the assessee in counter-reply relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rambhai L. Patel v. CIT (2001) 252 ITR 846 (Guj) and that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC) in support of the contention that penalty in this case is not warranted. It was further pointed out by the learned counsel that the Department at no stage held that the amount received by the assessee was in the form of dividend and, accordingly, assessable in the hands of the assessee, The learned counsel further reiterated that the receipt in the hands of the appellant from the company did not fall within the definition of "deemed dividend" under Section 2(22). It was, accordingly, pleaded that the appeal of the assessee may be allowed.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Suresh Chandra Mittal on 26 July, 2001
10. The learned counsel for the assessee in counter-reply relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rambhai L. Patel v. CIT (2001) 252 ITR 846 (Guj) and that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Suresh Chandra Mittal (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC) in support of the contention that penalty in this case is not warranted. It was further pointed out by the learned counsel that the Department at no stage held that the amount received by the assessee was in the form of dividend and, accordingly, assessable in the hands of the assessee, The learned counsel further reiterated that the receipt in the hands of the appellant from the company did not fall within the definition of "deemed dividend" under Section 2(22). It was, accordingly, pleaded that the appeal of the assessee may be allowed.
Kishinchand Chellaram And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Central, ... on 26 September, 1955
In the case of Kishanchand Chellaram and Ors. v. CIT (1962) 46 ITR 640 (SC), their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that dividend does not lose its taxable character as dividend merely because it is paid out of capital in violation of law.