Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.26 seconds)Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Andhra ... vs Mis. Bhikaji Dadabhai & Co on 22 February, 1961
16. It is submitted by Sri Chandrasekhar that the correctness of the above observations is open to doubt in view of the subsequently reported decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh v. Bhikkaji Dadabhai and Co. , wherein the Supreme Court regarded the penalty as an additional tax and repelled the argument that the power to impose the penalty under section 40 of the Hyderabad Income-tax Act was not saved by section 13(1) of the Finance Act, 1950.
Section 403 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Finance Act, 2018 [Entire Act]
The Central India Spinning Andweaving ... vs The Municipal Committee, Wardha on 18 December, 1957
10. It is no doubt true that as pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of Central India Spinning and Weaving and Manufacturing Co., Ltd., The Empress Mills, Nagpur v. The Municipal Committee, Wardha , taxing statutes must be strictly construed and in case of doubt it must be construed against the taxing authorities and doubt resolved in favour of the taxpayer.
Section 13 in The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
Section 46 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
C. A. Abraham, Uppoottil, Kottayam vs The Income-Tax Officer, Kottayam And ... on 29 November, 1960
11. Sri Chandrasekhar does not deny that in interpreting section 9 of the Central Act, it will not be open to the Court to make good any deficiency, if there be any. But, his argument is that there is no question of any doubt in the present case and that section 9(3) of the Central Act clearly makes applicable the provisions of the general sales tax law of the State, including those relating to penalties for making effective the payment and the collection of the tax payable under the Central Act. He relies on the observation made by the Supreme Court in the case of C. A. Abraham v. Income-tax Officer, Kottayam , which is as follows :-
M. M. Mathew vs Second Additional Income-Tax Officer, ... on 31 October, 1955
Sri Srinivasan also cited a decision of the Travancore-Cochin High Court reported in M. M. Mathew v. Second Additional Income-tax Officer, Kottayam ([1956] 29 I.T.R. 456), wherein it has been observed at page 459 that the imposition of a penalty cannot be considered to be a mode of recovery of tax. This observation was made while considering the validity (with reference to section 46 of the Income-tax Act) of the imposition of penalty upon penalty. The said observation is in no way useful in the present case, as it is not contended that the penalty under section 13(2) of the Mysore Act is a mode of recovery of tax.