Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (1.13 seconds)
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Birkmyre Export Co. (P) Ltd. on 29 January, 2002 cites

Chiranjilal Daga vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Anr. on 2 December, 1977

6. Even otherwise, it was submitted that the appeals filed by the assessee were not admitted and dismissed as time barred and, therefore, they could not be said to be the subject-matter of appeal in view of the decisions in the cases of Chiranjilal Daga v. CIT (1978) 113 ITR 363 (Mad), Radhey Shyam v. CIT (1984) 146 ITR 374 (All), Jagmohandas Gokaldas v. CWT (1963) 50 ITR 578 (Bom); and Krishna Flow Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1965) 55 ITR 259 (Mys) and the CBDT Circular No. 367, dt. 26th July, 1985. and also to the aforesaid order of the CIT(A). He further submitted that the distinction laid down by the learned Departmental Representative for the penalty under Section 271B is not supported, inasmuch as the provisions of Section 275 apply for imposition of penalty under this Chapter viz., Chapter XX and Section 271B also falls thereunder.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Radhe Shyam Tibrewal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Assam And ... on 10 August, 1983

6. Even otherwise, it was submitted that the appeals filed by the assessee were not admitted and dismissed as time barred and, therefore, they could not be said to be the subject-matter of appeal in view of the decisions in the cases of Chiranjilal Daga v. CIT (1978) 113 ITR 363 (Mad), Radhey Shyam v. CIT (1984) 146 ITR 374 (All), Jagmohandas Gokaldas v. CWT (1963) 50 ITR 578 (Bom); and Krishna Flow Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1965) 55 ITR 259 (Mys) and the CBDT Circular No. 367, dt. 26th July, 1985. and also to the aforesaid order of the CIT(A). He further submitted that the distinction laid down by the learned Departmental Representative for the penalty under Section 271B is not supported, inasmuch as the provisions of Section 275 apply for imposition of penalty under this Chapter viz., Chapter XX and Section 271B also falls thereunder.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Krishna Flour Mills vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bangalore on 1 November, 1960

7. We have heard the parties and considered the rival submissions. Provision of Section 275(1)(a) comes into play where the relevant assessment order was the subject-matter of appeal under Section 246 and where the appeal against assessment order has been dismissed as barred by limitation, the said order cannot be said to be the subject-matter of appeal in view of the decisions of the Madras and Allahabad High Courts and the Board Circular referred to above. Clause (a), therefore, would not come into play. It is Clause (c) which would come into play in the present case and that provides that no penalty can be levied after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated are completed or six months from the end of the month in which the action for imposition of penalty was initiated, whichever period expired later. Penalty proceedings were initiated on or before 2nd July, 1991, when the assessment was completed and, therefore, the last date for imposition of penalty would be 31st Jan.,1992, being later of the two terminous i.e., 31st March, 1992, being the end of the financial year and 31st Jan., 1992, the expiry of six months from the end of the assessment made on 2nd July, 1991. This is so far as the penalty under Sections 271(1)(c), 273(2)(b) and 271(1)(a) are concerned.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 19 - S K Das - Full Document

Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Jankidas Mohanlal on 11 April, 1984

3. The assessee's contention is that, the time-limit for passing order of penalty has expired on 31st Jan., 1992, being 6 months from the end of the month in which the proceedings, were initiated on 2nd July, 1991. The extended period of limitation in the case of filing of the appeal, it is submitted, was not available to the Department as the first time-limit of 6 months had already expired on 21st Jan., 1992 and the appeal was filed belatedly much after the date on 22nd March, 1993, and that too was not admitted and dismissed as barred by limitation by CIT(A) on 22nd May, 1996, learned counsel of the assessee submitted that the time-limit having already expired could not be revived by the subsequent act of filing an appeal by the assessee under Section 246 and a reference to the two Calcutta High Court decisions in the case of Bhaghath Kanona v. CIT (1980) 122 ITR 728 (Cal) and Patna High Court in the case of CIT v. Jankidas Mohanlal (1987) 163 ITR 756 (Pat) was made.
Patna High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1