Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.33 seconds)Section 271 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shree Raghunath Cotton Ginning And Oil ... on 26 October, 2004
In our view, if the observations made by this court in the above
referred decision and more particularly clauses (p), (q) and ® are
considered, it was a case wherein the decision of this court would apply and
it cannot be said that the decision of this court in the case of CIT Vs.
Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory reported in [2013] 359 ITR 565
(Karn)would not apply.
Section 80IB in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Smt. Santosh Jawa [Alongwith Ita No. ... on 25 July, 2005
12. The procedure that we have adopted has been consistently
followed by us in a large number of cases, some of which are Commissioner
of Income Tax Del v. O.K. Hosiery Mills P. Ltd. ITA No. 12/2007 decided
on 14th September, 2007, Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bharat Hotels
Ltd. ITA No. 1074/2006 decided on 14th September, 2007, Commissioner of
Income Tax v. Bharat Hotels Ltd. ITA No. 935/2006 decided on 14th
September, 2007, Commissioner of Income Tax v. Fibro Tech Chemicals
ITA No. 954/2006 decided on 14th September, 2007, Commissioner of
Income Tax v. PreetiAggarwala ITA No. 850/2006 decided on 15th
September, 2007, Commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt. Santosh Sharma ITA
No. 1088/2006 decided on 17th September, 2007 and Commissioner of
12
ITA NO 847/JP/2024
DWARKA GEMS LTD VS ACIT , CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR
Income Tax v. O.P. Lohia ITA No. 1052/2007 decided on 1st November,
2007.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Ssa'S Emerald Meadows on 5 August, 2016
It is further to
bring to the notice of your goodself that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs.
SSA'S Emerald Meadows has dismissed the Special Leave Petition of the
department, as reported in[2016] 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC).
Bansilal On Behalf Of Shri Ekling Cotton ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 11 July, 1957
The Hon'ble Punjab &
Haryana High Court in the case of TejBhan Cotton Ginning & Pressing Factory Vs.
CIT, Rohtak (supra) has held that the Assessing Officer in assessment order has satisfied
himself regarding initiation of penalty proceedings, which was tantamount to satisfaction
have recorded to the fact on the basis of addition made by the Assessing Officer for
concealed income in assessment order. The Hon'ble Court has confirmed the penalty even
penalty proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer by mentioning penalty proceeding
for concealing/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon'ble Punjab &
Haryana High Court has expressed different view on initiation of penalty proceedings
even notice U/s 274 issued by putting oblique between concealing and furnishing of
inaccurate particulars of income whereas the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has held
that the Assessing Officer has to satisfy at the time of initiation of penalty proceeding and
issuing notice U/s 274 of the Act that whether penalty is for concealed particulars of
income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. There were two opinions of the
Hon'ble Courts.
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs M/S. Vegetables Products Ltd on 29 January, 1973
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in case of two views of the
court, favourable view of the assessee would be taken as held in the case of CIT Vs
Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) and a recent decision in the case of CIT
Vs. Vatika Township P Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC). Therefore, we are of the
considered view that initiation of penalty proceedings is not as per law and Assessing
Officer did not have any jurisdiction to impose penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the
matter has been decided on technical issue, we are not expressing any view on merit of
the case. Accordingly, we delete the penalty confirmed by the ld CIT(A).
Commr.Of Income Tax-I,New Delhi vs Vatika Township P.Ltd on 15 September, 2014
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in case of two views of the
court, favourable view of the assessee would be taken as held in the case of CIT Vs
Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) and a recent decision in the case of CIT
Vs. Vatika Township P Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC). Therefore, we are of the
considered view that initiation of penalty proceedings is not as per law and Assessing
Officer did not have any jurisdiction to impose penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the
matter has been decided on technical issue, we are not expressing any view on merit of
the case. Accordingly, we delete the penalty confirmed by the ld CIT(A).
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Virgo Marketing (P) Limited on 23 January, 2008
In support of
the above contentions, further reliance is placed on the judgement of Delhi High
Court in the case of Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Virgo Marketing [2008]
171 Taxman 156 (Del) wherein it has been held as under: