Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.34 seconds)
Ramnath Goenka (Decd. By L. Rs.) vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 21 August, 2002 cites

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore vs Smt.R.Sharadamma on 3 April, 1996

2. That question is required to be answered against the assessee, and in favour of the Revenue in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. R. Sharadamma [1996] 219 ITR 671, wherein, the apex court held that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner does not lose the jurisdiction to continue with the proceedings pending before him on March 31, 1976, by virtue of the deletion of Sub-section (2) of Section 274 by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, with effect from April 1, 1976. The court held that (headnote) :
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 24 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Continental Sea Foods India (Private) ... on 19 January, 1994

14. Having regard to the law consistently laid down by this court that penalty is imposable only in cases where tax has been levied, and that no penalty can be levied when the result of the computation made by the Assessing Officer is a loss, and also having regard to the fact that the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal which had been preferred against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had taken a view similar to that taken by this court, it must be held that the Tribunal was in error in holding that penalty was leviable even when the assessment did not show any taxable income, but had showed net loss.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1