Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (2.97 seconds)Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 271 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 276C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 68 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Rimmalapudi Subba Rao vs Noony Veeraju And Ors. on 22 March, 1951
In Sir Chunilal case [1962 Supp (3) SCR 549 : AIR 1962 SC 1314] the Constitution Bench expressed agreement with the following view taken by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Rimmalapudi Subba Rao v. Noony Veeraju [AIR 1951 Mad 969 : (1951) 2 MLJ 222 (FB)] : (Sir Chunilal case [1962 Supp (3) SCR 549 : AIR 1962 SC 1314] , SCR p. 557)
'When a question of law is fairly arguable, where there is room for difference of opinion on it or where the Court thought it necessary to deal with that question at some length and discuss alternative views, then the question would be a substantial question of law. On the other hand if the question was practically covered by the decision of the highest court or if the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and the only question was of applying those principles to the particular fact of the case it would not be a substantial question of law.'
Santosh Hazari vs Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) By Lrs on 8 February, 2001
23. To be 'substantial' a question of law must be debatable, not previously settled by law of the land or a binding precedent, and must have a material bearing on the decision of the case, if answered either way, insofar as the rights of the parties before it are concerned. To be a question of law 'involving in the case' there must be first a foundation for it laid in the pleadings and the question should emerge from the sustainable findings of fact arrived at by court of facts and it must be necessary to decide that question of law for a just and proper decision of the case. An entirely new point raised for the first time before the High Court is not a question involved in the case unless it goes to the root of the matter. It will, therefore, depend on the facts and circumstance of each case whether a question of law is a substantial one and involved in the case or not, the paramount overall consideration being the need for striking a judicious balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis. (See Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari [(2001) 3 SCC 179] .)
Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Parikh Petro Chemicals Agencies (P.) ... on 17 August, 2000
32. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent assessee cited the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Balaha Chemicals Agencies reported in (2015) 94 CCH 0163. In the said case, this Court found that the Revenue had not been in a position to show that the payments of commission made by the respondent assessee were bogus in nature. There was also nothing on record to show that the assessee had concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The appeals of the Revenue were, accordingly, found to be without merit and dismissed the same.
Union Of India vs M/S Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills on 12 May, 2009
12. It is not that every case of addition warrants levy of penalty. The application of penal provisions are not automatic and the levy itself depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. On the incorrectness of the returns originally filed, not disclosing the transaction in shares, the proceedings susbequent to the statement filed certainly indicates the conduct of the assessee. Thus in view of the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2009 (233) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) Union of India vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills) on the law propounded on penalty, we reject this Tax Case Appeal and thereby confirm the order of the Tribunal.
Sir Shadilal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 30 April, 1982
The proposition in Sir Shadilal Sugar & General Mills Ltd (supra) that the Revenue is required to prove mens rea for imposition of penalty is no longer good law.