Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.24 seconds)M/S. Shiv Lal Tak vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Jodhpur on 5 February, 2001
a) Shiv Lal Tak Vs CIT [2001] 251 ITR 373 (Raj)
b) CIT Vs Harshvardhan Chemicals & Minerals Ltd
[2003] 133 Taxman 320 (Raj)
Hindustan Steel Ltd vs State Of Orissa on 4 August, 1969
(viii) Hon'ble Apex Court in Hindustan Steels Ltd. Vs.
State of Orissa, 83 ITR 26 (SC). has held that Penalty shall not be
imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Even if a minimum
penalty is prescribed the authority shall exercise the discretion
judicially and on consideration of all the relevant circumstances;
the penalty should not be imposed when there is technical or venial
breach of the provisions.
Dalsukhrai Jaidayal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And C.P. And ... on 4 November, 1949
It is thus emphatically pleaded that assessee has demonstrated that its
assessment had attained finality due to non service of notice u/s 143(2)
within limitation period. Admittedly neither any incriminating material
was found as a result of search nor it is relied on by ld. AO while
disallowing the loss; consequently the 153A assessment and summary
disallowance of loss is void ab initio. Hence the impugned 153A
assessment and addition/ disallowance of loss is not sustainable in law.
On this plea also the impugned penalty is liable to be deleted.
2.4 Ld. Counsel contends that assessee has shown GP rate of 62.85%,
there is no finding of ld AO in assessment order that the GP declared by
the assessee is at lower side or the expenses are inflated. Return of
income is filed on the basis of books of account audited by Chartered
Accountants under Companies Act and Income Tax Act i.e. by
independent statutory agencies after due examination have given a
statutory certificate that audited record give a true and fair view of the
loss of the company. The Audited annual accounts should be accepted as
evidence in view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
the case of Addl.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/S. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. on 17 September, 1992
CIT Vs Jai Engineering Works Ltd. (1978) 113 ITR
6
7
389, 391-2 (Del), wherein, Hon'ble High Court has held that audit report
is a reliable evidence. It is further contended that:
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Harshvardhan Chemicals And Mineral ... on 20 May, 2002
a) Shiv Lal Tak Vs CIT [2001] 251 ITR 373 (Raj)
b) CIT Vs Harshvardhan Chemicals & Minerals Ltd
[2003] 133 Taxman 320 (Raj)
Section 144 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Durga Kamal Rice Mills vs Cit on 9 April, 2003
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law
the ld CIT(A) erred in holding that the facts of the case of
the appellant are distinct from the facts of the case of Shiv
Lal Tak vs CIT (2001) 251 ITR 373 (Raj), CIT Vs
Harshwardhan Chemical & Material Ltd (2003) and Durga
Kamal Rice Mills Vs CIT(2004).
Deep Chand Kothari vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 4 September, 1987
"In the case of Deep Chand Kothari V. CIT (1988) 171 ITR
381 (Raj) the Hon'ble High Court has held that an order passed by
an authority without jurisdiction is a nullity and its invalidity can
be challenged whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced
or relied upon.