Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)
Smt. Bitoli Devi vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 27 April, 2007 cites

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Suresh Kumar on 27 December, 2004

Since the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) are similar to the provisions of Section 158BFA(2) the same will apply mutatis mutandis and the ratio as laid down by the various Courts while dealing with the penalty relating to concealment of income will also apply. Therefore, there was no merit in the plea of the Revenue that the penalty under Section 158BFA(2) is mandatory and not discretionary.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 39 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Smt. Mala Dayanithi vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 5 November, 2003

In the case of Smt. Mala Dayanithi (supra), the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal held that addition not based on material found during search or material in possession of AO, but based on difference in valuation of property, as disclosed by the assessee and as estimated by the DVO, there was no concealment attracting penalty under Section 158BFA(2) of the IT Act, 1961. In the instant case there was an estimate at the level of the AO as well as at the level of CIT(A) in respect of net profit rate. From the entire facts of the present case, it would be clear that the income of the assessee was estimated and nothing has been brought on record by the AO that the assessee concealed any particulars of income. In our view, unless any positive concealment is found, no penalty is leviable on the addition made on estimate basis.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 16 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Hari Gopal Chopra vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 24 September, 1997

In the case of Hari Gopal Singh v. CIT , the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held that where the assessment is made on estimate basis, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be imposed. The Hon'ble High Court observed that there was a difference of opinion as regards the estimate of income of the assessee. Since the AO and the Tribunal adopted different estimates in assessing the income of the assessee, it could not be said that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income so as to attract Clause (c) of Section 271(1) of the IT Act, 1961. In the instant case, the assessee applied a different net profit rate and the AO and CIT(A) adopted different estimates and, therefore, it could not be said that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income so as to attract penalty under Section 158BFA(2) of the IT Act, 1961.
Authority Tribunal Cites 18 - Cited by 32 - Full Document
1