Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.26 seconds)Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Munish Iron Store on 22 April, 2003
On identical facts, the Tribunal by relying on the judgments of the various High Courts including the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Munish Iron Store (supra) quashed the penalty orders in the following cases:
Income Tax Officer vs Rakesh Gupta on 18 January, 2007
(iv) Order dt. 18th Jan., 2007, in the case of ITO v. Rakesh Gupta (supra) (copy placed at pp. 61 to 68 of the paper book).
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Super Metal Re-Rollers (P) Ltd. on 29 September, 2003
15.4 Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Super Metal Re Rollers (supra). Thus, from the above it is clear that the AO has not recorded valid satisfaction in consonance with the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and, therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction for levy of penalty was bad in law.
Finance Act, 2013
Harcharan Dass Textile Mills ... vs Cit on 9 August, 2004
(ii) Order dt. 3rd June, 2005 in the case of Harcharan Singh v. CIT in ITA No. 414/Asr/2005 for the asst. yr. 1995-96 (copy placed at pp. 5 to 11 of the paper book).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/S. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. on 8 October, 1998
Besides, reliance was also placed on the two judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. and Diwan Enterprises v. CIT .
National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 4 December, 1996
6. We have heard both the parties and carefully considered the respective submissions. Additional ground raised by the assessee involves purely a question of law. All the relevant facts relating to the additional ground are already on record. Therefore, relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT (supra), the additional ground is admitted for all the assessment years.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs B.R. Sharma on 3 February, 2005
15.1 In the case of CIT v. B.R. Sharma , the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that the AO is under an obligation to record satisfaction prior to the initiation of the penalty proceedings in terms of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The order of the
AO should apparently show that there is application of mind, which can only be gathered by the reasons stated in the order and reference to other records may not be very relevant for this purpose. Thus, the sum and substance of the ratio of various judgments is that recording of satisfaction in the assessment order is a mandatory requirement of law for assuming jurisdiction of levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Failure to record satisfaction is a defect which cannot be cured and the same vitiates the order for imposing penalty. Now the fact whether the AO has recorded proper satisfaction or not has to be seen from the reasons recorded in the assessment order.