Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.16 seconds)Section 142 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Yeshwant B. Chigteri vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 8 December, 1999
4. Rival submissions of the parties have been considered carefully. As far as the first contention of assessee's counsel is concerned, we are in agreement with such contention inasmuch as there cannot be any concealment where the entire income has been declared by the assessee in the original return. In the present case, it is admittedly clear that the entire income of the assessee was declared and on the contrary, the assessment was framed on a lesser income. Therefore, in our opinion, there was no concealment of income. This issue was also considered by the Tribunal on a Bench in the case of Yashwant B. Chigteri v. Asstt. CIT (2001) 70 TTJ (Pune) 242 : (2000) 75 ITD 377 (Pune) to which one of us (JM) was party.
Brij Mohan vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, New Delhi on 3 August, 1979
The Bench, after following the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Brij Mohan v. CIT , judgment of Madras High Court in the case of S. Santhosa Nada v. Addl. ITO (1962) 46 ITR 411 (Mad) and judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Addl.
Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs C.V. Bagalkoti & Sons on 12 April, 1978
CIT v. C.V. Bagalkoti & Sons held that act of concealment is committed at the time when original return is filed and, therefore, where return is filed declaring the entire income, the question of concealment does not arise. The only question which remains to be considered is whether Expln. 3 to Section 271(1)(c) would apply in the present case. Admittedly, the returns were filed within the prescribed period under Section 153(1) i.e., within two years from the end of the assessment year. The second condition is that no notice under Section 142 or 148 should be issued before the expiry of the aforesaid period. In these cases notice under Section 148 was issued on 26th Feb., 2001 i.e., before the aforesaid period but after the date of filing of the return. Where the legislature provides for issuance of notice under Section 148 then it must be a valid notice.
Income Tax Officer vs Kunden Silk on 7 March, 2003
It must be mentioned that the learned Departmental Representative has relied on the decision of Special Bench in the case of ITO v. Kunden Silk , for the proposition that penalty can be levied even where the entire income is disclosed in the original return. After going through the said decision, we find that the reliance placed by the learned Departmental Representative is misplaced inasmuch as the income surrendered by the assessee at the time of survey had not been included in the original return.
1