Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.26 seconds)Section 271 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 131 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Zoom Communication Pvt Ltd on 24 May, 2010
"That the case of Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is clearly
distinguishable on facts because in that case the Assessee had conceded
before the AO that its action of claiming revenue deductions was not correct
at all. It was not the case of the Assessee therein, throughout the
proceedings that deductions carried out by the Assessee was a debatable
issue. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi noted that before it, the Assessee
could not explain the circumstances and its conduct.
Section 45 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Arpeo Data Research Pvt Ltd. (Now Merged ... vs Cit(A)-24, Mumbai on 20 October, 2021
20. We observe that the AO, while imposing the penalty has taken into
consideration the fact that the Assessee is a habitual offender as she has also
claimed the exemption u/s 54F of the Act in the A.Y. 2013-14 as well.
Further, the AO also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Zoom Communication Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and in the
case of MAC Data Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT {supra} wherein it was held as under:
Section 274 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Hindustan Steel Ltd vs State Of Orissa on 4 August, 1969
22. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Hindustan Steels Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, 83 ITR 26(SC) has also held "that the
penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted
deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest
or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will not also be imposed
merely because it is lawful to do so" by holding as under: