Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.34 seconds)
Acit, New Delhi vs Puri Oil Mills Ltd, New Delhi on 10 April, 2018 cites

Union Of India (Uoi) vs Dharamendra Textile Processors on 19 July, 2007

3. Learned DR submitted that inasmuch as the quantum of addition was sustained by the CIT(A) in quantum appeal, learned CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the penalty accepting the explanation of the assessee as bonafide and ignoring the fact that Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) is directly attracted to this case. The learned CIT(A) placed reliance on the decisions (i) Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors f(2007)295 ITR 244;(ii) CIT Vs Zoom Communication (P.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 31 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Zoom Communication Pvt Ltd on 24 May, 2010

3. Learned DR submitted that inasmuch as the quantum of addition was sustained by the CIT(A) in quantum appeal, learned CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the penalty accepting the explanation of the assessee as bonafide and ignoring the fact that Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) is directly attracted to this case. The learned CIT(A) placed reliance on the decisions (i) Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors f(2007)295 ITR 244;(ii) CIT Vs Zoom Communication (P.)
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 505 - V K Jain - Full Document

E. D. Sassoon And Company Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay ... on 14 May, 1954

Co Vs CIT, 236 ITR 977; (vii) CIT vs Gates Foam & Rubber Co 91 ITR 467 for the proposition that If assessee makes a claim which is not only incorrect in law, but is also wholly without any basis and explanation furnished by him for making such a claim is not found to be bona fide, Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) would come into play and assessee will be liable to penalty.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 1764 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Gates Foam And Rubber Company on 17 August, 1972

Co Vs CIT, 236 ITR 977; (vii) CIT vs Gates Foam & Rubber Co 91 ITR 467 for the proposition that If assessee makes a claim which is not only incorrect in law, but is also wholly without any basis and explanation furnished by him for making such a claim is not found to be bona fide, Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) would come into play and assessee will be liable to penalty.
Kerala High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 65 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Southern Petro-Chemical ... on 15 December, 2014

4. Per contra, learned AR submitted that when the assessee preferred appeal against the order of the learned CIT(A) sustaining the quantum addition, by order dated 21.2.2018 in ITA No.4500/Del/2010, a coordinate bench of this Tribunal was pleased to delete the same, as such, in the absence of any quantum addition, the penalty has no legs to stand and there are no reasons to interfere with the impugned order. Further learned AR placed reliance on CIT vs Reliance Petro Chemicals as reported in 322 ITR 158; CIT vs Dharampal Prem Chand Ltd as reported in 329 ITR 572; Cement Marketing Co. India Limited vs CST (1980) 124 CTR 17, 18 (SC); K.P. Madhusudan vs CIT (2011) 118 Taxmann 324 (SC); CIT vs Auric Investments & Securities Ltd of the jurisdictional Delhi High Court reported in 310 ITR 121.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 40 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Dharampal Prem Chand Ltd. on 31 January, 2006

4. Per contra, learned AR submitted that when the assessee preferred appeal against the order of the learned CIT(A) sustaining the quantum addition, by order dated 21.2.2018 in ITA No.4500/Del/2010, a coordinate bench of this Tribunal was pleased to delete the same, as such, in the absence of any quantum addition, the penalty has no legs to stand and there are no reasons to interfere with the impugned order. Further learned AR placed reliance on CIT vs Reliance Petro Chemicals as reported in 322 ITR 158; CIT vs Dharampal Prem Chand Ltd as reported in 329 ITR 572; Cement Marketing Co. India Limited vs CST (1980) 124 CTR 17, 18 (SC); K.P. Madhusudan vs CIT (2011) 118 Taxmann 324 (SC); CIT vs Auric Investments & Securities Ltd of the jurisdictional Delhi High Court reported in 310 ITR 121.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 20 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

P.K. Badiani vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bombay on 21 September, 1976

4. Per contra, learned AR submitted that when the assessee preferred appeal against the order of the learned CIT(A) sustaining the quantum addition, by order dated 21.2.2018 in ITA No.4500/Del/2010, a coordinate bench of this Tribunal was pleased to delete the same, as such, in the absence of any quantum addition, the penalty has no legs to stand and there are no reasons to interfere with the impugned order. Further learned AR placed reliance on CIT vs Reliance Petro Chemicals as reported in 322 ITR 158; CIT vs Dharampal Prem Chand Ltd as reported in 329 ITR 572; Cement Marketing Co. India Limited vs CST (1980) 124 CTR 17, 18 (SC); K.P. Madhusudan vs CIT (2011) 118 Taxmann 324 (SC); CIT vs Auric Investments & Securities Ltd of the jurisdictional Delhi High Court reported in 310 ITR 121.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 113 - N L Untwalia - Full Document
1   2 Next