Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.24 seconds)
Neel Kanth Gum And Chemicals , Jhunjhunu vs Acit, Circle Jhunjhunu, Income Tax ... on 9 April, 2024
cites
Section 80IA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Customs Act, 1962
Section 75 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
M/S Liberty India vs Commr.Of Income Tax,Karnal on 31 August, 2009
22........We have not been impressed by the submissions advanced by
Mr. Bandhyopadhyay (The counsel for the Department). The judgment
of the Apex Court in the case of Liberty India (supra) was in relation
to the subsidy arising out of customs draw back and duty Entitlement
Pass- book Scheme (DEPB). Both the incentives considered by the
Apex Court in the case of Liberty India could be availed after the
manufacturing activity was over and exports were made. But, we are
concerned in this case with the transport and interest subsidy which
has a direct nexus with the manufacturing activity inasmuch as these
subsidies go to reduce the cost of production.
Section 37 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Cit vs M/S Meghalaya Steels Ltd on 9 March, 2016
In background of the decision of Meghalaya Steel it is apparent that
there is no debate on exclusion of export benefit from the profit of
enterprise while calculating the deduction u/s 801B. The proposition
made by the assessee that the quantum addition in this case was made
a debatable point, therefore, emanates from entirely incorrect
appreciation of the ratio of the Meghalaya Steel (Supra). The
proposition of the assessee therefore, fails.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Zoom Communication Pvt Ltd on 24 May, 2010
2.5 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on
record. In this case, it is noted that the AO levied the penalty of Rs.16,64,400/- u/s
271(1)©of the Act holding that it is crystal clear that the assessee has concealed the
particulars of its income and furnished inaccurate particulars of such income to the
extent of Rs.53,82,460/- by way of wrong claim of deduction u/s 80-IB on DEPB,
VKUY, VKGUY provision and Duty Draw Back Provision. Hence, the provisions
15
ITA NO. 805/JP/2023
NEEL KANTH GUM AND CHEMICALS VS ACIT, CIRCLE- JUHNJHUNU
of Section 271(1)© of the Act are applicable in this case and it is a fit case to levy
of penalty u/s 271(1)© of the Act which has been confirmed by the ld.CIT(A)
holding that the decision of the AO that levy of penalty is as per the provision of
explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) and it is found to be correct. For this proposition
apart from the authority cited by the AO, reliance is made upon the decision of
Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Zoom Communication Pvt Ltd 191 Taxman
179 (Delhi), Escorts Finance Ltd 183 Taxman 453 (Delhi). It is also noted that the
AO issued the show cause notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 11-12-2014 (PB