Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.35 seconds)
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Labala Haribandhu Sahu on 25 January, 1982 cites

Additional Commissioner Of ... vs Sadiq Ali & Bros. on 12 April, 1973

CIT v. Sadiq Ali & Bros. [1973] 92 ITR 276 (J & K), it has been held that no penalty under the Explanation can be levied in a case of unproved cash deposits. In that case, the assessee gave no explanation about the cash deposits in its books which was partly accepted. The court did not approve the imposition of the penalty under the Explanation relating to the unaccepted part.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 12 - S M Ali - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat I vs S.P. Bhatt on 8 March, 1973

In the case of CIT v. S.P. Bhatt [1974] 97 ITR 440 (Guj), it has been held that the Income-tax Officer may very well reject the book results of the assessee and estimate a higher profit but it does not follow therefrom that the accounts maintained by the assessee were false or incorrect. In that very case, it was laid down that the burden on the assessee under the Explanation was such that it was not necessary to produce any positive material in order to discharge the same. The assessee may claim to have discharged the burden by relying on the material which was recorded in the penalty (assessment) proceedings. The question that has to be seen in every case is whether on preponderance of probabilities it can be said that the difference between the returned income and the assessed income arose due to any fraud or gross or wilful neglect on the part of the assessee."
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 48 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

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

8. Here again, we think, the Tribunal kept the proper perspective in view and looked at the matter from the right aspect. As was pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 1TR 26, merely because there is a provision for the imposition of penalty it is not mandatory that the taxing officer must exercise his jurisdiction and levy a penalty in every case. Penalty must be grounded upon contumacious conduct and callous indifference to the provisions of law and wilful non-compliance with the requirements of the statutes. Parliament has made provision for penalty with a view to regulating the conduct of the assessee and in a given case where the taxing authority is of the view that there was no contumacy, no callous indifference or on the facts there does not appear to be any material to show obstinate conduct or defiance of the law, penalty may not be levied. The power to decide whether the facts of a case give rise to a situation for imposition of penalty vests in the taxing officer in the same way as in the appellate authority. The Tribunal took stock of the entire aspect and in exercise of its appellate powers came to hold that the facts of the case did not warrant an imposition of penalty by the exercise of that jurisdiction. This, we are of the view, is a matter within the domain of the Tribunal's jurisdiction and once such a finding is reached or recorded, there is hardly any question of law arising for being referred to the court or for being answered. In the facts of the case, we are inclined to think that the Tribunal did come to the conclusion that the facts were such that the assessee's conduct did not warrant visiting him with penalty. The question referred to us, therefore, is answered against the Revenue by holding that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 1607 - J C Shah - Full Document
1