Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.26 seconds)
Deputy vs Ge on 29 March, 2011 cites

Impulse India (P.) Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 29 August, 1991

"5.3 All material facts were available with the Assessing Officer from the time the return of income was filed. There was no attempt by the appellant to conceal the particulars of income. Whether, depreciation is to be allowed or not can be an issue for the purpose of levy of tax but it is well settled principle that circumstances which may result in levy of tax need not necessarily result in penalty. In the present case, the claim of depreciation was an issue which has been agitated upto the Hon'ble ITAT. In fact the appellant's return of income for the AY 2000-01 wherein no depreciation has been claimed, has been accepted by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(1). Therefore, in revising the return of income for the Asstt. Year 2001-02, the appellant cannot be said to have filed inaccurate particulars of income nor concealed particulars of its income. The Delhi ITAT in Impulse India(P) Ltd. Vs. ITO, 40 ITD 36 held that where the explanation made by the assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A), it does not mean that the assessee could not make a claim or the assessee's claim was based on false premises. Where the assessee had a bona fide belief that it was entitled to a particular claim, it could not be said to be a bogus or false claim or there was an attempt to conceal income. In view of the above, I hold that the Assessing Officer was not justified in levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, penalty of Rs.3,33,64,630/- levied by the Assessing Officer is deleted."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Mahendra Mills on 15 March, 2000

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the orders on record, we find that CIT(Appeals) and tribunal have concurrently found that all material facts were made available to make assessment while filing original return by the assessee. There was no attempt on part of the assessee either to conceal the income or produce inaccurate details of income. We further find that CIT(Appeals) and tribunal both found that at best assessee had made a claim which was not allowable in law. However, same would not give rise to penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. From the elaborate discussion made by CIT(Appeals) and tribunal in the impugned judgement, we find that assessee had put in a claim of certain depreciation. Such depreciation was allowable by virtue of decision of Apex court in case of Mahendra Mills Ltd(supra). Thereupon assessee filed revised return in year 1999-2000. Since such revision for claim of depreciation would have cascading effect in subsequent years, in the present year under consideration also assessee filed revised return. This per-se would not give rise to presumption that assessee had either concealed his income or filed inaccurate particulars of its income.
Supreme Court of India Cites 58 - Cited by 164 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

Union Of India vs M/S Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills on 12 May, 2009

Though reference is made to the decision of Apex Court in case of Union of India and others v. Dharmendra Textiles Processors and others reported in (2008) 306 ITR 277(SC), we find that in subsequent decision in case of Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills reported in (2009) 13 Supreme Court Cases 448, this decision has been explained by the Apex court in background of provisions contained in Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act as under :
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 453 - A Alam - Full Document
1