Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (0.57 seconds)
Smt. Suman Lakhani, New Delhi vs Acit, Faridabad on 13 September, 2019 cites

Hindustan Steel Ltd vs State Of Orissa on 4 August, 1969

for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2012-13, the same incumbent in the Office of Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, on the identical issue in identical facts and circumstances. However, for the year under consideration, in appeal before us, the same incumbent in the Office of Ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, on identical issue in identical facts and circumstances. The reason for this inconsistency in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in Assessment Year 2008-09 as compared with the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) in Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2012-13 is not far to seek. When we perused the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2012-13, it was found that Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2012-13, the Ld. CIT(A) based his decision on the binding precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Product Ltd. (supra) and Hindustan Steel vs. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26 (SC). However, these binding precedents were not considered by the Ld. CIT(A) in his aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 02.12.2015 for Assessment Year 2008-09.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 1607 - J C Shah - Full Document

S. A. Builders Ltd. .. Petitioner vs Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ... on 14 December, 2006

In such cases, disallowance of interest cannot be upheld as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of S. A. Builders Ltd. (supra). Therefore even if the addition is confirmed or no appeal is filed by the assessee for want of proper advice or any other reasons, the addition made cannot be basis for imposing penalty when the claim is allowable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 1104 - M Katju - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next