Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.64 seconds)Section 263 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 153A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs J.P. Narayana Swamy on 26 September, 2016
order of the assessment as asserted by the Ld.PCIT. Therefore, in this
case also as in the case of M/s.CMRL, according to the Ld.AR, the Ld.PCIT
seems to have distorted the order of assessment and therefore, the
findings of the Ld.PCIT to that extent is perverse and therefore, in the
absence of clear finding of the AO that there was underreporting or
misreporting of income u/s.270A of the Act, the Ld.PCIT erred in holding
that omission to initiate penalty u/s.270A of the Act was erroneous in so
far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We find considerable
force in the submission of the Ld.AR and find that the Ld.PCIT erred in
recording a finding of fact in his impugned order u/s.263 of the Act that in
the assessment orders in question, the AO has given a clear finding that
the additions made in the assessment order attracted penalty as per the
provisions of Sec.270A of the Act. Further, it is noted that it is not the
case of the Ld.PCIT that the AO erred in initiating penalty u/s.271AAB(1A)
of the Act for all the three assessment years i.e. AY 2018-19 to 2020-21.
It is also noted that the AO in the assessment orders (under
consideration) hasn't given any finding that the assessee has
underreported or misreported its income. Therefore, the Ld.PCIT erred in
holding that omission to record satisfaction to initiate penalty proceedings
u/s.270A of the Act was clearly erroneous being perverse. Therefore,
relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of
CIT v. CRK Swamy & the case of CIT v. CMRL (supra), we set aside the
ITA Nos.1137 to 1139/Chny/2024
(AYs 2018-19 to 2020-21)
M/s. Anitha Texcot (India) Pvt. Ltd.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
The Coinage Act, 2011
Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Sudershan Talkies on 22 April, 1992
), wherein the Hon'ble Madras High Court was pleased to
uphold the action of the Tribunal holding that revision of assessment by
the Commissioner on the ground that the penalty proceedings hadn't
been initiated was unsustainable by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble
Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Sudershan Talkies reported in
ITA Nos.1137 to 1139/Chny/2024
(AYs 2018-19 to 2020-21)
M/s. Anitha Texcot (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Surendra Prasad Agrawal on 1 September, 2004
14. In view of Section 271(1) read with Section 263 of the Act, the Principal
Commissioner might pass such order as the circumstances of the case might
justify, which could include ah order enhancing or modifying the assessment or
cancelling the assessment or directing a fresh assessment/Directing fresh
assessment would, in our view, include assessment of penalty. It cannot,
therefore, be said that the Principal Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass
such order. The issue has been decided by a Division Bench of the High Court
of Allahabad in CIT v. Surendra Prasad Agrawal [2005] 142 Taxman 653.
Section 132 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 1 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1