Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.48 seconds)Section 274 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Bhagwan Ltd. on 24 May, 1982
2. CIT vs. Bhagwan Ltd. (1987) 60 CTR (Cal) 105: (1987) 168 ITR 846
(Cal).
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Judl. W.B-1 vs New Central Jute Mills Co. Ltd. on 29 August, 2014
3. CIT vs. Bengal Jute Mills Co. Ltd. (1988) 72 CTR (Cal) 177: (1988)
174 ITR 402 (Cal).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Madanlal Sohanlal on 22 June, 1981
4. CIT vs. Madanlal Sohanlal (1989) 176 I.T.R. 189 (Cal).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Bedi And Co. (P.) Ltd. on 5 August, 1980
5. CIT vs. Bedi and Co. (P) Ltd. (1990) 183 ITR 59 (Kar)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9/12
TCA Nos. 440 & 441 of 2011
"Held, that, in view of the conclusion reached by the High Court that the
amount in question was not assessable, there was no basis for the
imposition of penalty. The cancellation of penalty was valid.
The Medi Assist India Tpa P Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ( Tds) on 13 August, 2009
[The Supreme Court has dismissed the special leave petition filed by the
Department against this judgment of the High Court in relation to
penalty under section 271(1)(c) arising out of an assessment, wherein
the addition of a loan has been cancelled by the High Court as reported
in Bedi & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (1983) 144 ITR 352 (Kar) : See (1990)
181 ITR (St) 19-Ed.]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Agarwalla Brothers on 21 August, 1990
6. CIT vs. Agarwalla Brothers [1990] 88 CTR (Pat) 133: (1991) 189
ITR 786 (Pat)
“Held, (i) that the fact a particular construction had not been shown in
the accounts of the assessee was not relevant since this circumstance had
not been recorded as one of the reasons for initiating the proceedings
under section 147(a);
Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Badri Narain Kashi Prasad. on 13 January, 1978
7. Addl. CIT vs. Badri Prasad Kashi Prasad [1993] 200 I.T.R. 206 (All)
"Held, that the levy of penalty was based on the addition to income made
by the Income-tax Officer. The addition was deleted by the Tribunal.
Hence,the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty."
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Roy Durlabhji on 4 April, 1994
In view of the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, there is no doubt that the questions of law involved in these cases are
necessarily to be held against the Revenue, since there is no quantum of tax
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10/12
TCA Nos. 440 & 441 of 2011
available for the purpose of levying penalty.