Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.55 seconds)C.I.T.,Ahmedabad vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt.Ltd on 17 March, 2010
In any case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent decision in the case
of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has observed as under:
Section 48 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs P.H.I. Seeds India Ltd. on 17 November, 2006
Hon'ble Delhi High Court held in the case of CIT v. P.H.I.
Seeds India Ltd. [2008] 301 ITR 13 that the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is
attracted in those instances where the assessee conceals the
particulars of income or furnishes inaccurate particulars of income
with an intention to mislead the revenue and it should not be imposed
in every case where the return is not accepted and the assessment is
framed at the income higher than the returned income."
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Nath Brothers Exim International Ltd. on 24 December, 1999
3.3 There are several judgments of various courts that the penalty
should not be imposed on the facts similar to the present case.
Hon'ble Delhi High Court held in the case of CIT v. Nath Brothers Exim
International Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 670 that where facts are disclosed
but the claim of deduction is wrongly made concealment penalty
u/s.271(1)(c) cannot be imposed.
Section 4 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/S.Caplin Point Laboratories Ltd on 19 June, 2007
Hon'ble Madras High Court held in
the case of CIT v. Caplin Point Lab. Ltd. [2007] 293 ITR 524 that
when disallowance is made on the basis of different interpretation it
cannot be said that particulars of income are concealed or inaccurate
particulars are filed.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Calcutta Credit Corporation Ltd. on 21 November, 1984
Hon'ble Calcutta High curt held in the case of CIT
v. Calcutta Credit Corporation Ltd. 166 ITR 29 that where two
opinions are possible on facts of the case penalty u/s.271(1)(c) cannot
be imposed.
1