Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.51 seconds)Section 269T in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 269SS in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Hindustan Steel Ltd vs State Of Orissa on 4 August, 1969
To say, therefore, that the breach of the said
provisions is a mere technical or venial breach, so that no penalty on that account would
be exigible, as explained by the apex court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa
(supra), would not obtain. The said decision, no doubt forming part of the jurisprudence
on penal provisions, particularly in the context of fiscal legislation, we may clarify, could
only be applied with reference to the factual circumstances and the conduct of the
assesse, and not merely with reference to a prescription of law. As explained in Kum.
Section 271D in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 271E in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 273B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 68 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Cit vs Natvarlal Purshottamdas Parekh on 25 February, 2005
In so deciding, we have been guided
by the decisions by the hon'ble courts, where the term 'reasonable cause' has been
explained as liable to be liberally construed where the bona fides are not in doubt, and
indeed penalty held as not exigible under similar circumstances, as in CIT vs. Natvarlal
Purshottamdas Parekh [2008] 303 ITR 5 (Guj)).
Cit (It)-4(2)(2), Mumbai vs Standard Chartered Masterbrand ... on 25 March, 2021
Reference in this regard may be made to the
decision in the case of CIT v. Standard Brands Ltd. [2006] 285 ITR 295 (Del), besides
several by the tribunal.