Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.52 seconds)Section 271F in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 154 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Trustees Of Tulsidas Gopalji ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 16 September, 1993
Considering the all the facts of the
case that the assessee has filed the return of income within time allowed
u/s. 139(4) of the Act, the return being refund return, the decision of Hon'ble
High Court of Bombay in the case of Trustees of Tulsidas Gopalji Charitable
and Chaleswar Temple Trust vs. CIT (supra) and the decision of ITAT,
Kolkata (supra), we hold that there is no case for levy of penalty u/s. 271F
of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and delete
the penalty levied u/s. 271F of the Act.
Prakash Nath Khanna & Anr vs Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr on 16 February, 2004
The Ld. CIT(A)
relied on the decision of Prakash Nath Khanna vs. CIT (supra), which is
related to the case of the prosecution and not the penalty u/s 271E of the
Act. The department has not made out the case that the assessee required
to pay tax which remained unpaid.
Section 271 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Mrs. Manju Kataruka vs Income Tax Officer on 7 April, 2004
The income tax return was refund return
and the order of Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata in the case of Mrs. Manju Kataruka
vs. ITO in ITA No.1955/Kol/2003 dated 7.04.2004, held that when there was
a refund due, non filing of return of income within specified time u/s. 139(1)
of the Act has to be considered as a bonafide belief and the said bonafide
belief is to be treated as reasonable cause for non furnishing the return
before the end of the assessment year.
Section 271E in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Punjab vs Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P) Ltd on 30 April, 1970
CIT Vs. Kulu Valley Transport Co. (P) Ltd. (1970) 77
ITR 518 (SC) followed. In view of the factual position and legal matrix of
the cases under consideration the penalties u/s.271 F of the Act levied by
the Assessing Officer is not justified. Therefore, the grounds of appeals are
hereby allowed."