Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.26 seconds)
Kpc Medical College And Hospital vs The Principal Commissioner Of Income ... on 19 March, 2025
cites
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Ssa Consultants Pvt. Ltd on 6 June, 2016
The
said decision of the High Court of Karnataka was affirmed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the decision reported in CIT v. SSA's Emerald Meadows
[2016] 73 taxmann.com 248/242 Taxman 180.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shree Raghunath Cotton Ginning And Oil ... on 26 October, 2004
the High Court of Karnataka following the decision in CIT v.
Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 35 taxmann.com 250/218
Taxman 423/359 ITR 565 (Kar.) held that the imposition of penalty under
section 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reasons where
the show cause notice under section 274 of the Act did not specify the
charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of
particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
Section 271 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 153C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Union Of India vs M/S Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills on 12 May, 2009
"10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs.
Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills reported in (2009) 13 SCC 448,
considered the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Union of India and Ors vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors & Ors.,
reported in [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC) and held that it goes without saying
that for applicability of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, condition stated therein
must exist.
Union Of India & Ors vs M/S. Dharamendra Textile Processors ... on 29 September, 2008
Referring to the decision in
the case of Dharmendra Textile Processors, (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court pointed out that in the background of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act,
there is no necessity of mens rea being shown by the Revenue, however
referring to the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) penalty being a multiple
liability, the bonafide of the conduct of the assessee necessarily assumes
significant, even though willfulness of the assessee may not be a criteria,
the conduct is to be considered. Thus, a mere fact that the addition in this
case has been sustained by this Court by itself would not lead to the
automatic application to Section 271(1), the Tribunal went into the
explanation offered by the assessee as regards the charging of a higher
amount in the case of J.B.Exports. Although, the Tribunal rejected the
explanation for the purpose of assessment of goods, it considered it as a
good ground for cancellation of penalty, when the explanation on the
differential amount was given by the assessee that the entries were made
in the account and the Accountant had not made the correct entry.
C.I.T.,Ahmedabad vs Reliance Petroproducts Pvt.Ltd on 17 March, 2010
The above said decision came up for consideration in the case
of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt., Ltd.,
reported in [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC). On reading of Section 27(1)(c), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that in order to bring the case under
Section 271(1)(c), there has to be concealment of the particulars of the
income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished
inaccurate particulars of his income. In order to expose the assessee to
penalty, unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty
provision could not be invoked. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed
out that a mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by
itself, would not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars regarding
the income of the assessee. The reading of the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court referred to above, thus points out that for sustaining
penalty, the bonafide explanation of the assessee must be looked at, so
that the contumacious conduct of the assessee for the purpose of
sustaining the penalty would be taken as condition that is the main
8
requirement under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Mak Data P. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii on 30 October, 2013
In a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.9772 of 2013, dated 30.10.2013 (Mak Data P. Ltd., vs. Commissioner
of Income Tax-II), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the
Explanation to Section 271(1), held that the question would be whether the
assessee had offered an explanation for concealment of particulars of
income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and the Explanation
to Section 271(1) raises a presumption of concealment, when a difference
is noticed by the Assessing Officer between the reported and assessed
income. The burden is then on the assessee to show otherwise, by cogent
and reliable evidence and when the initial onus placed by the explanation,
has been discharged by the assessee, the onus shifts on the Revenue to
show that the amount in question constituted their income and not
otherwise. ........"
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, Pune vs Sinhgad Technical Education Society on 16 October, 2015
In this regard, we take note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in CIT Vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society [2017] 84 taxmann.com
290, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that correlation should be
established with the seized documents qua the assessee document-wise with
the assessment years in question and upon such exercise not being done, the
notice issued under Section 153C of the Act was quashed.