Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.50 seconds)Section 271B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Bangalore Steel Distributors vs Income-Tax Officer on 3 February, 1994
He also submitted that the ratio of the Calcutta High Court's decision in the case of Calcutta Chromotype (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1971) 80 ITR 627 (Cal) and the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anchor Pressing (P) Ltd. (1982) 136 ITR 505 (All) also support the construction placed by the Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in the case of Bangalore Steel Distributors vs. ITO, on s. 271B.
Kritkumar M. Muchhala vs Income-Tax Officer on 13 May, 1993
In our considered opinion, the Tribunal, Bombay Bench-D(SMC), in the case of Kritkumar M. Muchhala vs. ITO (supra) had correctly construed the provisions of s. 271B when it held as follows :
Section 10 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Calcutta Chromotype Pvt. Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 11 March, 1970
The Allahabad High Court followed the ratio of the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Calcutta Chromotype (P) Ltd. (supra) and held that s. 9 of the Surtax Act envisages the levy of penalty for the failure to file a return under s. 5 without reasonable cause and not for the failure to file a return within the time prescribed under sub-s. (1) or sub-s. (2) thereof and that even a return filed under s. 5(3) at any time before the assessment is made is also a valid return, contemplated under s. 5. In that case return was filed under s. 5(3). The Allahabad High Court held that when the return was filed under s. 5(3), no penalty is leviable under s. 9 for not filing the return under s. 5(1). The ratio of that decision has no application at all to the facts on hand. The provisions of s. 5 and 9 of the Sur Tax Act are not in pari materia with s. 44AB and s. 271B of the IT Act.
Section 5 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs M/S. Vegetables Products Ltd on 29 January, 1973
The ratio of the Supreme Court ruling in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (supra) can have no application at all to the case on hand since, in our view, the plain language of s. 271B does not reasonably admit more than one interpretation.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central) vs Anchor Pressing (P.) Ltd. on 2 September, 1981
22. The next case relied on by the assessee is CIT vs. Anchor Pressing (P) Ltd. (supra). In that case, the Allahabad High Court was concerned with the interpretation of the provisions contained in ss. 5 and 9 of Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, which are similar to ss. 6 and 10 of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963.