Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.35 seconds)

Hindustan Steel Ltd vs State Of Orissa on 4 August, 1969

8. Shri Malik further submitted that the assessee, being agriculturist and residing in village did not have any other income. Prior to setting up of the partnership firm, all the assesses herein as well as their grandfather were having income only from agricultural operations and did not have any taxable income. Thus, on the date of receipt of loan they had no other income. Accordingly, in terms of Second proviso to Section 269SS, Section 271D was not attracted. He also submitted that the amount so received from grandfather has by way of financial help and should not be viewed as loan in strict sense. The default, if any, is a technical one for which penalty is not attracted, which is as high as the amount of loan received itself. The assessee at all time was under bonafide belief that the provision of Act are not attracted and the default being technical in nature do not justify levy of penalty as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steels Ltd. v. State of Orissa 83 ITR 26.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 1607 - J C Shah - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Hissaria Bros. on 21 July, 2006

It may be a different fact that the penalty can be levied only by JCIT/Addl. CIT but the limitation will always expire as per provisions of Section 275(1)(c). For this purpose, reliance was placed on the decision of ITAT, Jodhpur Bench in the case of Hissaria Bros. As approved by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Hissaria Bros. 291 ITR 244.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 48 - G K Vyas - Full Document
1