Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.22 seconds)Finance Act, 1999
Section 44AB in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Saraswathi Estate vs Commissioner Of Agricultural ... on 19 April, 2001
14. On the other hand, the learned departmental representative submitted that the Assessing Officer is not required to establish any "mens rea". What is to be seen is whether the assessee acted bonafide. It is not a case of mere inadvertence or pure mistake of calculation but a deliberate act in not furnishing certain receipt as income. The learned departmental representative also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Saraswathi Estate v. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Anr. reported at 251 ITR 168.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs J.K.A. Subramania Chettiar on 9 February, 1977
15.2 The word "conceal" is derived from the Latin concelare which implies con + celare, to hide. Webster's in his New International Dictionary equates its meaning "to hide or withdraw from observation; to cover or keep from sight; to prevent the discovery of; to withhold knowledge of". The offence of concealment is thus a direct attempt to hide on item of income or a portion thereof from the knowledge of the income-tax authorities. It is implicit in the word "concealed" that there has been a deliberate act on the part of the assessee. The meaning of the word "concealment" as found in Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, third edition, volume-I, is as follows: "In law, the intentional suppression of truth or fact known, to the injury or prejudice of another" (CIT v. J.K.A. Subramania Chettiar (1977) 110 ITR 602, 608 (Mad). Concealment can be only of facts and not of conclusions to be drawn from facts. It is the case of assessee that since the income was already offered for taxation in earlier year, the same was not offered during the year under appeal. This is an uncontroverted fact. We therefore, hold that penalty Under Section 271(1)(c) is not attracted either for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat I vs Lakhdhir Lalji on 17 September, 1971
15.4 One more argument was placed before us for the proposition that since the penalty was initiated in the assessment order for concealment of income and since penalty is levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars, penalty cannot be legally levied. We are totally in agreement with this argument advanced. At the time of hearing, the learned departmental representative was confronted that the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Lakhdhir Lalji reported at 85 ITR 77 to which no contrary decision was cited.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Mahendra Mills on 15 March, 2000
He submitted that the assessee is legally entitled to change the method of accounting regularly employed by him. When the assessee bonafide changed his method of accounting and satisfied the department that he intends to adopt the changed method of accounting thereafter, that satisfies the requirement of Section 145. Neither principle nor authority bars an assessee from substituting one method of account for another at his choice. For this proposition, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case CIT v. Mahendra Mills and Ors. reported at 243 ITR 56 for the proposition that just as the assessee has right to claim or not to claim depreciation benefit. Similarly, the assessee has the right to choose a particular method of accounting.