Category: Sec. 271(1)(a)

Karnataka H.C : the penalty under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act is liable to be cancelled by accepting the reasonable cause assigned by the assessee that he was not able to pay advance tax without taking into account that fact that the assessee received a sum of Rs. 10,80,000 out of the sale proceeds and an advance of Rs. 9,00,000 during the said assessment year.

High Court Of Karnataka CIT & ANR. vs. U. Manohar Rao Section 271(1)(a) Asst. Year 1988-89 K.L. Manjunath & Mrs. B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. IT Appeal No. 2888 of 2005 2nd March, 2010 Counsel appeared : K.V. Aravind for M.V. Seshachala, for the Appellants : S.P. Bhat, for the Respondent JUDGMENT Mrs. B.V. Nagarathna, J. : The …

Bombay H.C : the interest under s. 139(8) of the IT Act (for short ‘Act’) and penalties under s. 271(1)(a) for the asst. yrs. 1985-86 to 1989-90 have been retained though prayed for waiving the same

High Court Of Bombay, Nagpur Bench Madhuri vs. CIT & Anr. Section 139(8), 271(1)(a), 273A Asst. Year 1985-86 to 1989-90 Anoop V. Mohta & C.L. Pangarkar, JJ. Writ Petn. No. 1787 of 1994 7th August, 2008 Counsel appeared : G.B. Lohia & R.S. Agrawal, for the Petitioner : A.S. Jaiswal, for the Respondents JUDGMENT Anoop V. …

Himachal Pradesh H.C : The Tribunal, while upholding penalty imposed under s. 271(1)(a) of the IT Act, 1961, for each of the asst. yrs. 1983-84 and 1984-85, was right in law in giving the finding that there was no reasonable and sufficient cause for not filing the return in time

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh Janeshwar Lal Rajeshwar Lal vs. CIT Section 271(1)(a), 273B Asst. Year 1983-84, 1984-85 Deepak Gupta & Surinder Singh, JJ. IT Ref. No. 12 of 1994 27th April, 2007 Counsel Appeared : K.D. Sood, for the Applicant : Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, for the Respondent JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J. : The aforesaid reference …

S.C : The return of income had been filed on 6th Feb., 1961, i.e., within the period permissible under s. 139(4) of the IT Act, 1961, the imposition of a penalty was justified as there was a delay for the purpose of s. 271(1)(a)

Supreme Court Of India Amin Chand Payarelal vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors. Sections 139(4), 271(1)(a) Asst. Years 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64, 1964-65, 1965-66 Ashok Bhan & Markandey Katju, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 4114 of 2001 5th September, 2006 Counsel Appeared Anil Roychowdhury with Raja Chatterjee, Ms. Sutapa Roychowdhury, Sachin Das & …

Gauhati H.C : The petitioner was the income-tax assessee under the Act and for the asst. yr. 1987-88 the petitioner was required to file its return on or before 31st July, 1987, under s. 139 of the Act

High Court Of Gauhati Assam Tribune vs. DCIT Sections 271(1)(a), 273B Asst. Year 1987-88 P.G. Agarwal & T. Nandakumar Singh, JJ. IT Appeal No. 2 of 2003 26th June, 2006 Counsel Appeared Dr. A.K. Saraf with S. Chetia, D. Baruah, S. Agarwalla & K. Jain, for the Assessee : U. Bhuyan, for the Revenue JUDGMENT P.G. …

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty order passed under s. 271(1)(a) in the case of the partners for the reasons that partnership had already been penalised on this account ?

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Smt. C. Susila Section 271(1)(a) Asst. Years 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87 P.D. Dinakaran & P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, JJ. Tax Case Nos. 66 & 176 to 178 of 2000 8th February, 2006 Counsel Appeared Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman, for the Applicant : None, for the Respondent JUDGMENT P.D. Dinakaran, J. : At …

Allahabad H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in confirming the decision of the Dy. CIT(A) deleting the penalties of Rs. 9,800 each in the asst. yrs. 1982-83 and 1983-84 imposed under s. 271(1)(b) of the IT Act, 1961 ?

High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. Smt. Pushpa Devi Jain Section 271(1)(b), 271(1)(iii) Asst. Year 1982-83, 1983-84 R.K. Agrawal & Rajes Kumar, JJ. IT Ref. No. 35 of 1996 8th April, 2005 Counsel Appeared : Shambhu Chopra, for the Revenue : None, for the Assessee JUDGMENT By the court : The Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the …

Allahabad H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that no penalty could be imposed on a registered firm where the advance tax paid exceeded the tax assessed on it as a registered firm even though as an unregistered firm the tax payable would be more than the advance tax ?

High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. Chanda Radio Section 271(1)(a), 271(2) Asst. Year 1983-84 R.K. Agrawal & Prakash Krishna, JJ. IT Ref. No. 231 of 1992 22nd March, 2005 ORDER Prakash Krishna, J. : The Tribunal, Allahabad, at the instance of the Revenue has referred the following question of law under s. 256(1) of the IT …
Malcare WordPress Security