Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.42 seconds)

Sri Bidyut Kumar Sett vs Income-Tax Officer on 8 October, 2004

short "the Act"), the assessee was required to deposit only `500 as Tribunal fee in appeal filed against penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Though there was a controversy with regard to the payment of Tribunal fee in appeal against penalty orders, yet the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Tribunal. Now the controversy in this regard has been set at rest by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sri Bidyut Kumar Sett v. ITO [2005] 272 ITR (AT) 75 (SB) wherein it has been held that in the matter concerning levy of penalty, only `500 is payable towards institution fee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 21 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Rajakamal Polymers (P) Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 25 September, 2006

The Karnataka High Court in the case of Rajakamal Polymers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, 291 ITR 314 and the Patna High Court in the case of Dr. Ajith Kumar Pandey v. ITAT, 310 ITR 195 have also held that in the matters concerning levy of penalty, only `500 is payable towards institution fee for the Tribunal. Since the controversy has been set at rest, the order of the Tribunal, which was passed contrary to the legal provisions relating to payment of Tribunal fee, may be recalled and the appeal may be heard on merit.
Karnataka High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1