Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.18 seconds)
Rahul Swarup, Muzaffarnagar vs Department Of Income Tax on 26 March, 2010 cites

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Haryana Warehousing Corporation on 1 July, 2009

Further, it has been also decided in the case of C.I.T. vs. Haryana Warehousing Corporation (P&H) P. 215 (ITA No. 871 of 2008), Dated 1.7.2009 (Punjab & Haryana) that levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for non-disclosure of deemed dividend income on account of ignorance of law the penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not imposable upon assessee.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 12 - J S Khehar - Full Document

Hindustan Steel Ltd vs State Of Orissa on 4 August, 1969

4.8 In this regard we also place reliance from the Apex Court decision rendered by a larger Bench comprising of three of their Lordships in the case of Hindustan Steel vs. State of Orissa in 83 ITR 26 wherein it was held that "An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceedings, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct 7 ITA NO. 2436/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. Even if a minimum penalty is prescribed, the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty, when there is a technical or venial breach of the provisions of the Act, or where the breach flows from a bonafide belief that the offender is not liable to act in the manner prescribed by the statute."
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 1607 - J C Shah - Full Document
1