Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.27 seconds)Finance Act, 1999
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Prithipal Singh And Co. on 20 July, 2000
In view of the legal position discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that if the main Section 271(1)(c) had no application in a case where both the returned as well as assessed income are loss, as held by the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Prithipal Singh & Co. (supra) and affirmed by the Hon'ble apex Court, then such case cannot be said to have been covered by Expln. 4 to the said section w.e.f. 1st April, 1976, since the said Explanation cannot be so construed as to widen the scope of main Section 271(1)(c) which is a charging section. In that view of the matter, we find no infirmity in the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) cancelling the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) in the present case where both the returned and finally assessed figures were loss. The same is, therefore, upheld.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs N. Krishnan on 13 October, 1997
Similarly the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. N. Krishnan (supra) involving asst. yr. 1978-79 i.e., after the insertion of Expln. 4 to Section 271(1)(c) held that where assessment is made at loss, tax cannot be determined as also penalty under Section 271(1)(c) based on the same cannot be quantified and, therefore, no penalty can be imposed in the case where the assessed income is loss even if there was concealment.
Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) ... vs Harprasad & Co. (P) Ltd on 25 February, 1975
5. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Jaora Oil Mills (1981) 129 TTR 423 (MP) and that the Madras High Court in CIT v. C.R. Niranjan (1991) 187 ITR 280 (Mad) the learned counsel for the assessee emphasised that these are the direct and clear authorities for the proposition that no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be imposed on the assessee for alleged concealment where the returned loss is just reduced in the assessment, notwithstanding the fact that the expression "income" includes loss also as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case CIT v. Harprasad & Co. (P) Ltd. (1975) 99 TTR 118 (SC) and CIT v. J.H. Gotla (1985) 156 ITR 323 (SC). He contended that the plea of the learned Departmental Representative that concealment penalty can be levied under Section 271(1)(c) even in,a case where returned income and finally assessed income are loss in view of Expln. 4 inserted in that section w.e.f. 1st April, 1976 is not acceptable because the said Explanation by itself cannot alter the definition of "income" given in the main section which refers to the positive income as interpreted in the various judicial pronouncements.
Keshavji Ravji & Co. Etc. Etc vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 5 February, 1990
In this regard he also elaborated the scope of "Explanation" appended to a section with the help of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Keshavji Ravji & Co. v. CIT (1990) 183 ITR 1 (SC) and contended that the purpose of an "Explanation" in a statute is to clarify or explain any doubt or ambiguity and the same cannot be construed as to widen the scope of the substantive provision.
Indo-Gulf Fertilizers And Chemicals ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 11 February, 1992
In the case of Indo-Gulf Fertilizers & Chemicals Corpn. Ltd. v. Union of India (1992) 195 ITR 485 (All), the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has observed that the word "Income" occurring in Clauses (c) and (iii) of Section 271 of the IT Act, 1961, refers to positive income only.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs A.J. Shetty & Co. P. Ltd. on 5 December, 2001
In the case of CIT v. Doraiswami Chetty (P) Ltd. (1990) 183 ITR 559 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that an Explanation normally serves as a legislative exposition of the import of the section to which it is appended.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Voltas Ltd. on 31 March, 1993
In the case of CIT v. Voltas Ltd. (1994) 205 ITR 569 (Bom) the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has opined that there is no presumption that an Explanation which is inserted subsequently introduced something new which was not present in the relevant section before.