Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.29 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shree Raghunath Cotton Ginning And Oil ... on 26 October, 2004
16. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton and
Ginning Factory has held that a person who is accused of the conditions
mentioned in section 271 should be made known about the grounds on
which they intend imposing penalty on him as section 274 makes it
clear that assessee has a right to contest such proceedings and should
have full opportunity to meet the case of the Department and show that
63 ITA No. 1029 to 1034/JP/2019
Shri Laxman Nainani vs. DCIT
the conditions stipulated in section 271(l)(c) do not exist as such he is
not liable to pay penalty. The Hon'ble High Court went on to hold that:
Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987
In our view the assessee has
explained the delay of filing the appeal before us. Our views
find support from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji &
Ors. (1987) 62 CTR (Syn)(SC) 23 : (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)."
Section 12AA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 279 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Acit, Pune vs Marvel Realtors.& Developers Ltd., ... on 30 December, 2016
63. Now, coming to another contention raised by the ld AR wherein
he has challenged the findings of the lower authorities that penalty U/s
271AAB is mandatory in nature and there is no discretion with the
Income tax authorities. In this regard, we again refer to the provisions
of Section 271AAB which begins with the stipulation that the Assessing
officer may direct the assessee and the assessee shall pay the penalty
as per clause (a) to (c) so satisfied in sub-section (1) to Section
271AAB. Further, as per sub-section (3) of Section 271AAB, the
provisions of section 274 and section 275 as far as may be applied in
relation to penalty under this section which means that before levying
the penalty, the Assessing officer has to issue a show-cause granting an
opportunity to the assessee. Thus, we find that the levy of penalty is
not automatic but the Assessing officer has to decide based on facts
and circumstances of the each case. It is a consistent view which has
been taken by the various Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal and a
useful reference can be drawn to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench
in case of ACIT vs Marvel Associates reported in 92 taxmann.com 109
wherein it was held as under: