Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.28 seconds)Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Jiwan Lal Shah on 22 May, 1975
According to him the question is whether the penalty is in any manner linked with the assessment. In his submission, the word "case" appearing in Clauses (a) to (c) is to be given a general meaning. The words "subject matter of an appeal" appearing in the residuary Clause (d) denote an entirely different aspect of the matter and is not to be confused with the import of the word "case" appearing in the earlier clauses. Mr. Chakraborty further submitted that for purposes of levying a penalty for concealment Under Section 271(1)(c), the A.O. is required to be satisfied about the guilt of the assessee and it is only that part of the income ultimately assessed, which the assessee concealed from the Income-tax Department, that would form the basis of the levy of penalty. In other words, the income assessed by the A.O. does not have any connection with the amount of penalty. He pointed out that it is a well settled proposition, recognized by the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Dharamchand L. Shah 204 ITR 462 that the assessment and penalty proceedings are different from each other and that they are linked with each other only for a limited purpose of calculation of the amount of penalty and this distinction should not be lost sight of while interpreting the provisions of Section 253(6).
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Meerut vs M/S Kisan Sahkari Chinni Mills Ltd on 21 August, 2001
Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Kisan Sahkari Chinni Mills Ltd. 255 ITR 57 in which it was held that there is no equity in tax proceedings. The following judgments/orders/circulars were also relied upon generally in support of the contentions:
C.I.T. Central, Calcutta vs National Taj Traders on 27 November, 1979
1. CIT v. National Taj Traders 121 ITR 535 (SC) at 545.
Amruta Enterprises vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 27 June, 2002
2. Amruta Enterprises v. Dy. CIT 84 ITD 172
The Keshav Mills Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 8 February, 1965
8. Mr. Agarwal also submitted that having regard to the doctrine of "stare decisis", a Special Bench cannot be constituted for reviewing an earlier Special Bench order. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT 56 ITR 365, he submitted that Courts should be slow to depart from a construction of statute which has held the field for considerable period of time and at any rate the basic principle of review was that if two views are equally possible, the earlier view should be left undisturbed.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. on 26 July, 2002
In fact this is the reason why the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Atma Ram Properties Ltd. 258 ITR 246 held that the appellate authority sitting in appeal over a penalty order should wait for the disposal of the appeal against the quantum.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/S. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. on 8 October, 1998
In CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises 246 ITR 568 the Delhi High Court placing reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Angidi Chettiar 44 ITR 739 and D.M. Manasvi v. CIT 86 ITR 557, held that the recording of the satisfaction regarding concealment in the course of the assessment proceedings is an indispensable requirement for the validity of the penalty proceedings.
The Commssioner Of Income Tax, Madras ... vs S.V. Angidi Chettiar on 9 January, 1962
In CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises 246 ITR 568 the Delhi High Court placing reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Angidi Chettiar 44 ITR 739 and D.M. Manasvi v. CIT 86 ITR 557, held that the recording of the satisfaction regarding concealment in the course of the assessment proceedings is an indispensable requirement for the validity of the penalty proceedings.
D. M. Manasvi vs C.I.T., Gujarat Ii, Ahmedabad on 19 September, 1972
In CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises 246 ITR 568 the Delhi High Court placing reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Angidi Chettiar 44 ITR 739 and D.M. Manasvi v. CIT 86 ITR 557, held that the recording of the satisfaction regarding concealment in the course of the assessment proceedings is an indispensable requirement for the validity of the penalty proceedings.