Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.43 seconds)
Verma Tractors vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 18 August, 2006 cites

Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987

The reasons mentioned in the condonation petition are that due to delay caused by courier, the appeal reached late in the Tribunal. This fact is supported by duly sworn affidavit. The delay being of few days and there being a sufficient reason for the delay, we condone the same and admit the appeal. It has been clearly held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji that when the cause of substantial justice is pitted against pedantic rules, the former should prevail.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 5846 - M P Thakkar - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Vikas Promoters (P) Ltd. on 7 January, 2005

In yet another decision of the same Hon'ble Court in the case of CIT v. Vikas Promoters (P) Ltd. it has been held after relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar and in CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. , that the element of satisfaction should be apparent from the order itself. It is mandatory for the AO to record satisfaction before drawing inference for the purpose of penalty while completing the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act. The provisions of Section 271(l)(c) are penal in nature and thus must be strictly construed.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

The Commssioner Of Income Tax, Madras ... vs S.V. Angidi Chettiar on 9 January, 1962

In yet another decision of the same Hon'ble Court in the case of CIT v. Vikas Promoters (P) Ltd. it has been held after relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar and in CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. , that the element of satisfaction should be apparent from the order itself. It is mandatory for the AO to record satisfaction before drawing inference for the purpose of penalty while completing the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act. The provisions of Section 271(l)(c) are penal in nature and thus must be strictly construed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 173 - J C Shah - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/S. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. on 8 October, 1998

In yet another decision of the same Hon'ble Court in the case of CIT v. Vikas Promoters (P) Ltd. it has been held after relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar and in CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. , that the element of satisfaction should be apparent from the order itself. It is mandatory for the AO to record satisfaction before drawing inference for the purpose of penalty while completing the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act. The provisions of Section 271(l)(c) are penal in nature and thus must be strictly construed.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 210 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Narendra Kumar vs Income Tax Officer on 25 February, 2005

6. The perusal of the last para of the assessment order reveals that the AO has simply stated that penalty notice under Section 271(1)(c) has been issued separately. In my considered opinion this does not amount to recording of a proper satisfaction for the purpose of initiating the penalty. Reliance is placed on the abovementioned decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. This view has been followed in numerous decisions of the Tribunal all over India, including this Bench in the case of Narendra Kumar v. ITO in ITA No. 449/Jd/2001, asst. yr. 1997-98, dt. 25th Feb., 2005 [reported at (2005) 94 TTJ (Jd) 156-Ed.] of which I was author. It was held that a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), levied for additions made on the basis of surrender of income and after rejection of explanation does not, ipso facto, lead to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jodhpur Cites 8 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1