Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.25 seconds)
Balka Services (P) Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer on 4 April, 2005 cites

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

In the present case, a perusal of the entire assessment order passed by the AO clearly shows that the satisfaction required for initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) as envisaged by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (supra), was not recorded by the AO in the assessment order and this being so, we hold that the initiation of penalty proceedings was not in accordance with law and the penalty imposed in pursuance of such invalid proceedings is liable to be cancelled on this ground.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 210 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

D. M. Manasvi vs C.I.T., Gujarat Ii, Ahmedabad on 19 September, 1972

Relying on this decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of D.M. Manasvi (supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprise Ltd. (supra) has held that the satisfaction as to the assessee having concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income is to be arrived at by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings without which the very jurisdiction to initiate penalty proceedings is not conferred on the assessing authority by reference to Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 271. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, therefore, upheld the order of the Tribunal cancelling the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) on the ground that the assessment order did. not record the satisfaction as warranted by Section 271 for initiating the penalty proceedings.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 179 - H R Khanna - Full Document

Subhash Gupta (Individual) vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 16 January, 2003

Moreover, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have affirmed the order of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Prithipal Singh & Co. (supra) and while discussing the effects of such affirmation by the Hon'ble apex Court, the Jaipur Bench of Tribunal in its Third Member decision in the case of Subhash Gupta (Individual) v. Dy. CIT (2003) 78 TTJ (Jp)(TM) 692: (2003) 85 ITD 167 (Jp)(TM) has observed that the order of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Prithipal Singh & Co. (supra) has merged with the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court and has become law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution. Explaining further, the Jaipur Bench has observed that as per the law so laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be recovered in addition to tax payable on assessment and in case no tax is found to be payable, no penalty can be imposed under Section 271(1)(c).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 64 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

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

4. The learned Counsel for the assessee has also raised a contention before us that the income finally assessed by the AO in the case of the assessee being negative, i.e., loss, the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified as held by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Prithipal Singh & Co. and further confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 99 - Full Document

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

It is, however, observed that the said decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Angidi Chettiar (supra) was cited before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (supra) and the same was thus considered by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court along with the subsequent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.M. Manasvi v. CIT wherein it was observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that satisfaction before conclusion of the proceedings under the Act and not the issue of a notice or initiation of any stake (sic) for imposing penalty is a condition for the exercise of the jurisdiction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 173 - J C Shah - Full Document
1