Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.32 seconds)Akshay Bhandar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 30 May, 1996
In the case of Akshay Bhander Vs CIT, 220 ITR 325
[1996] (Gau), it has been held that the penalty is a quasi-criminal in
nature and no penalty can be levied unless there is evidence of
concealment or the assessee is held guilty of concealment.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Adamkhan on 14 February, 1996
In the
case of CIT Vs Adamkhan, 223 ITR 264 [1997] (Mad), it has been
held that no penalty is leviable in the case of additions which are
made on estimated income or a conditional surrender is made by
the assessee to avoid the penalty and to buy peace with the
department.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Harshvardhan Chemicals And Mineral ... on 20 May, 2002
7.3 We also find force in the assessee's contention that it has been
held in the case of CIT Vs Harshvardhan Chemicals & Minerals Ltd,
259 ITR 212 [2003] (Raj), that no penalty is leviable for any addition
which is debatable, arguable and a controversial addition.
Section 234B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 234C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 271 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Dhingra Metal Works on 4 October, 2010
(iv) CIT Vs Dhingra Metal Works, 328 ITR 384 [2010] (Del)
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Suresh Chandra Mittal on 26 July, 2001
(v) CIT Vs Suresh Chandra Mittal, 251 ITR 9 [2001] (SC)
4
ITA NO.2301/Del/2013
7.2 The AO has not detected any concealment of income either in
the return of income or in the books of accounts of the assessee as
the assessee has submitted all the details to the AO. We find
considerable cogency in the assessee's contention that the case of
the assessee is also supported by the case of CIT Vs. Reliance
Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) in which it has been
held that mere making of a claim which is unsustainable law cannot
be treated as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and as
such will not attract the penalty proceedings U/S 271(1)(c) of the I.T.
Act.