Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.37 seconds)Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax vs Ram Narain Agrawal on 26 March, 1976
4. The penalty under the Act is imposable for a contravention or failure to fulfil the requirements of the law in regard to the filing of the return. The penalty, as the section itself speaks, is in respect of the failure to furnish the return without reasonable cause. The failure refers to the last date on which the return was due to be filed which would normally be 30th of June or such other date specified in the notice under section 14(2) or the last date of the period up to which time may have been extended by the Wealth-tax Officer. The penalty gets crystallised on the expiry of the last date of the period within which the return was due to be filed and the default occurred. Therefore, the penalty imposable is on the basis of the provision as is in operation as on the expiry of the last day of the period within which the return was due to be filed, unless it is provided otherwise by an express provision of the law. Merely, because the provision, the date of default, and, therefore, the date of incurring the liability does not changed not does the quantum of penalty get varied. The amendment made in 1969 is not with retrospective effect and cannot in any way effect the liability which got crystallised earlier to its coming into force. This view of ours gets support from the decision the High Court of Madras in Commissioner of Gift-tax v. C. Muthukumaraswamy Mudaliar , under the Gift-tax Act in relation to an identical provision, in Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Ram Narain Agrawal of the High Court of Allahabad and in commissioner of Wealth tax v. R. D. Chand [1977] 108 ITR 787 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and in Suresh Seth v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax [1977] 108 ITR 86 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Suresh Seth vs Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax on 28 January, 1977
4. The penalty under the Act is imposable for a contravention or failure to fulfil the requirements of the law in regard to the filing of the return. The penalty, as the section itself speaks, is in respect of the failure to furnish the return without reasonable cause. The failure refers to the last date on which the return was due to be filed which would normally be 30th of June or such other date specified in the notice under section 14(2) or the last date of the period up to which time may have been extended by the Wealth-tax Officer. The penalty gets crystallised on the expiry of the last date of the period within which the return was due to be filed and the default occurred. Therefore, the penalty imposable is on the basis of the provision as is in operation as on the expiry of the last day of the period within which the return was due to be filed, unless it is provided otherwise by an express provision of the law. Merely, because the provision, the date of default, and, therefore, the date of incurring the liability does not changed not does the quantum of penalty get varied. The amendment made in 1969 is not with retrospective effect and cannot in any way effect the liability which got crystallised earlier to its coming into force. This view of ours gets support from the decision the High Court of Madras in Commissioner of Gift-tax v. C. Muthukumaraswamy Mudaliar , under the Gift-tax Act in relation to an identical provision, in Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Ram Narain Agrawal of the High Court of Allahabad and in commissioner of Wealth tax v. R. D. Chand [1977] 108 ITR 787 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and in Suresh Seth v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax [1977] 108 ITR 86 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Section 139 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 24 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
The Gift-Tax Act, 1958
Section 17 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Gift-Tax vs C. Muthukumaraswamy Mudaliar on 23 September, 1974
4. The penalty under the Act is imposable for a contravention or failure to fulfil the requirements of the law in regard to the filing of the return. The penalty, as the section itself speaks, is in respect of the failure to furnish the return without reasonable cause. The failure refers to the last date on which the return was due to be filed which would normally be 30th of June or such other date specified in the notice under section 14(2) or the last date of the period up to which time may have been extended by the Wealth-tax Officer. The penalty gets crystallised on the expiry of the last date of the period within which the return was due to be filed and the default occurred. Therefore, the penalty imposable is on the basis of the provision as is in operation as on the expiry of the last day of the period within which the return was due to be filed, unless it is provided otherwise by an express provision of the law. Merely, because the provision, the date of default, and, therefore, the date of incurring the liability does not changed not does the quantum of penalty get varied. The amendment made in 1969 is not with retrospective effect and cannot in any way effect the liability which got crystallised earlier to its coming into force. This view of ours gets support from the decision the High Court of Madras in Commissioner of Gift-tax v. C. Muthukumaraswamy Mudaliar , under the Gift-tax Act in relation to an identical provision, in Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Ram Narain Agrawal of the High Court of Allahabad and in commissioner of Wealth tax v. R. D. Chand [1977] 108 ITR 787 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and in Suresh Seth v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax [1977] 108 ITR 86 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957
1