Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.25 seconds)Ganesh Dass Sreeram, Etc. A vs Income Tax Officer, 'A' Ward, Shillong ... on 30 October, 1987
"The decision of the Supreme Court in Ganesh Dass Sreeram vs. ITO (1988) 169 ITR 221 (SC) deals with the question of charging a registered firm with interest when the return is filed by it beyond time but the entire amount of tax is paid by way of advance-tax. The Supreme Court held that regard being had to the fact that payment of interest was only compensatory in nature, the question of payment of any compensation did not arise when the entire amount of tax was paid by way of advance-tax. This decision is not attracted in considering the question of imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Bhabuti Contractor on 13 March, 1987
CIT (1981) 127 ITR 782 (MP) and CIT vs. Bhabuti Contractor (1990) 183 ITR 445 (MP) (Misc.
Delux Publishing Co. vs Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 12 November, 1979
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Nemichand Ganeshmal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 24 July, 1978
This view was also taken by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Nemichand Ganeshmal vs. CIT (supra), in which their Lordships have held that the imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act for the delay in filing the return is legal even where the interest is charged under cl. (iii) of proviso to s. 139(1) of the Act and even where the assessee filed the return within the time allowed under the provisions of s. 139(4) of the Act.
Section 139 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Gangaram Chapolia on 2 April, 1975
These observations were taken by the Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gagaram Chapolia (supra) but in the instant case the assessee did not make any effort to show any reasonable cause of not filing the return within the stipulated time under s. 139(1) even after receiving the notice under s. 148 of the Act. Instead of disclosing the reasons for not filing the return within the stipulated time, the assessee contended that he had paid the advance-tax much more than the tax due from the assessee. Since no tax was payable, the return was not filed under s. 139(1) of the Act. These are not sufficient grounds for condoning the delay caused by the assessee in filing the return. Once it is established that the return has not been intentionally filed within the stipulated period under s. 139(1) or within the period mentioned in the notice issued under s. 148 of the Act, the AO has no other option but to initiate the penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act. Once the AO has formed an opinion under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act, penalty has to be imposed according to sub-s. (2) of s. 271 of the Act and as such in the instant case the return was not filed by the registered firm in the prescribed period and as such the registered firm has to be treated as unregistered firm for the purpose of levy of penalty and the tax assessable to be worked out as if it were an unregistered firm and the penalty to be calculated on the tax so determined.
Kaluram Ladharam vs Comissioner Of Income-Tax. on 7 March, 1989
In another case Kaluram Ladharam vs. CIT (supra) the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court has held as under :
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Builders Engineers Co. on 12 August, 1988
We have carefully examined the other judgments cited by the assessee, i.e. (1984) 150 ITR 545 (AP), (1983) 141 ITR 946 (Gau), (1982) 136 ITR 159 (MP) and (1981) 130 ITR 955 (Gau) (supra).