Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.60 seconds)

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Prithipal Singh And Co. on 20 July, 2000

4.4. The word "income" occurring in Clause (c) and (iii) of Section 271(1) of the Act refers to positive income only and not a loss. Penalty could be imposed only in addition to the tax payable. When there is no tax payable, the question of any penalty does not arise. In fact, evasion of tax is the sine qua non for imposition of penalty. If there is no taxable income or tax assessed for payment during a particular year, the question of evasion and consequently, penalty do not arise. The penal provisions of Section 271(1)(c), therefore, are attracted only in the case of an assessee having positive income and not loss, as the question of concealment of income to avoid payment of tax would arise only in the former case. Penalty is a deterrent measure to prevent evasion of tax and when there was no tax payable, there could be any such evasion so as to provide a scope for levying any penalty, vide CIT v. Prithipal Singh and Co. 183 ITR 69.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 99 - Full Document

Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Murugan Timber Depot on 23 March, 1977

4.2. As per the language in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, there could be no case in which penalty could be levied where no tax is payable by the assessee since the quantification of the penalty is totally dependent upon the tax payable by the assessee. Therefore, the conclusion is irresistible that when the assessee is not liable to pay any tax, no penalty can be levied on the assessee, vide Addl. CIT v. Murugan Timber Depot 113 ITR 99.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 23 - Full Document
1