Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.46 seconds)Section 132 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs V.C. Shukla & Ors on 2 March, 1998
9. The Ld. DR on the other hand, while supporting the order of the
AO submitted that this is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of
the I.T. Act. Refuting the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assesee
that the seized document contain coded language which could not be
decipher without the help of the assessee, he submitted that there is no
code as such since it is crystal clear from the language itself. So far as
the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that it was a
conditional offer, he submitted that conditional offer has no legal
sanctity as far as Income Tax proceedings are concerned. Referring to
the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V.C. Shukla
(supra) relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, he submitted that
the ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present
case. He submitted that when the assessee during the course of search
proceedings and assessment proceedings has admitted the receipt of on-
money, no further enquiry was required by the department.
Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Parikh Petro Chemicals Agencies (P.) ... on 17 August, 2000
8.3 Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd. 322 ITR 158 he submitted that
mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will
not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of
the assessee. Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to
furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
Tarachand Ghanshyamdas vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 15 June, 1981
8.4 Referring to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Tarachand
Ghanshyamdas v. CIT reported in 59 ITR 378 he submitted that when
the offer was conditional, the AO cannot go to that part of the offer
which is favourable to the department and against the assessee. He also
relied on a couple of decisions as per the written submissions and
submitted that the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the Ld.
CIT(A) should be deleted and the portion on which penalty levied by the
AO has been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) should be upheld. In sum and
substance he submitted that no penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. can
be levied in the instant case.
Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Chirag Metal Rolling Mills Ltd. on 31 August, 2006
9.1 The Ld. DR also relied on the decision in the case of Dy. Director
of Income Tax v. Chirag Metal Rolling Mills Ltd. reported in 305 ITR 29
(MP) and the decisions reported in 153 ITR 376 (Madras), 243 ITR 618
(Kerala) and 124 ITR 376 (Madras). So far as the amount of `.110.50
crores is concerned, the Ld. D.R submitted that although the signature
is not there but all other conditions are fulfilled such as specific date,
name of the project, area, amount etc. Since the assesseee has offered
the amount during the course of assessment proceedings, it is not
correct to say that the amount has not been received. Since the Ld.
CIT(A) has not given any cogent reason while deleting the penalty on this
amount, he submitted that the penalty levied by the A.O on this amount
should be upheld.