Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.19 seconds)Section 269SS in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Hindustan Steel Ltd vs State Of Orissa on 4 August, 1969
Further, the law is well settled that penalty will not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Reliance in this regard is plakhed on the judgment of Honble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (supra), where it has been held at p 26 (headnotes) as under :
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Lawly Enterprises (P.) Ltd. on 23 August, 1996
In the case of ITO v. Law Enterprises (1990) 185 ITR 595 (AP), the Andhra Pradesh High Court, by referring to provisions of section 269SS, where the expression used is "person is liable for penalty" has held that the word "liable" used in the section gives discretion to the court with regard to the imposition of fine or penalty. The court may either choose or impose fine or may dispense with the imposition of fine. When such discretion exists with regard to the imposition of fine itself, it could not be said that the court has no discretion with regard to the quantum of fine to be imposed. Thus, mere default or non-compliance with the provisions of section 269SS would not automatically attract the penalty under section 271D.
Muthoot M. George Bankers vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 16 April, 1993
(v) Muthoot M. George Brothers v. Asstt. CIT (1993) 47 TTJ (Coch-Trib) 434.
Section 269T in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Dr. Deepak Muchala vs Income Tax Officer on 26 February, 1996
(iii) Dr. Deepak Muchala v. ITO (1997) 58 TTJ (Bom-Trib) 524;
Section 273B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
B.I.C. Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 29 March, 1996
(i) Dr. B. G. Panda v. Dy. CIT (2000) 111 Taxman 86 (Cal-Trib) (Mag);