New User / Register || Book Marks || Annual Subscription || Feed Back ||
Login: Stay
|| Forget Password ||
     
TMI - Tax Management India. Com  

Recent Discussionss:

Service tax applicability on Directors remuneration valuation of goods and ED on scrap Two companies in different states Import of Service i.e. Payment to architect of Dubai for construction of House in India Service Tax Payment on GTA Second hand equipment with EPCG Licence Necessity of RD 23 D Export goods from other manufacturer Payment Made in Wrong Code TDS Payment done 94C instead of 94J

Income Tax Case Laws - Section: 141

 

Income Tax


Cases for Section: 141
 
Showing 1 to 12 of 12 Records
 

1990 (10) TMI 6 - SUPREME Court

Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus MJ Daveda

Return filed beyond time - Tribunal was justified in holding that, by the levy of interest under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Officer must be deemed to have granted time up to the date of filing the return of income - penal ......

1990 (3) TMI 11 - BOMBAY High Court

Harinagar Sugar Mills Limited Versus First Income-Tax Officer And Another

Advance Tax, Interest Payable By Government ......

........... nt order under sub-section (1) of section 214 and from the date of the assessment order up to the date of actual refund under sub-section (2) thereof. It is, however, seen that the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 214 specifically lays down that no interest is payable for any period after the date of the provisional assessment. That apart, sub-section (2) of section 214 is applicable to refunds under that Chapter, i.e., Chapter XVII. In the present case, the refund was issued not under Chapter XVII, but under Chapter XIV and, sub-section (2) as such is not applicable. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any apparent mistake of law in the order of the Income-tax Officer in granting interest up to the date of the provisional assessment order. Accordingly, the rule is made partly absolute, i.e., the petitioner shall be entitled to the interest on the entire amount of refund, i.e., Rs. 13,57,063, from April 1, 1978, to August 7, 1978. No order as to costs.

1985 (7) TMI 83 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Patiala II Versus Varinder Kumar

Delay In Filing Return, Penalty ......

........... equal to two per cent. of the tax for every month during which the default continued but not exceeding in the aggregate 50 per cent. of the tax . By the amendment brought about in the year 1974, instead of the words tax payable , the words tax assessed were substituted. A Division Bench of this court in CIT v. Mangat Ram Kuthiala 1978 111 ITR 823, while interpreting the said provision held that the said amendment has been made retrospective and has to be deemed to have always been in force. The same view was reiterated in CIT v. Patram Dass Raja Ram Beri 1984 148 ITR 120, and it was held that the amount paid under provisional assessment under section 23B of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (now section 141 of the Income-tax Act, 1961), cannot be deducted for calculating the penalty. These references thus stand concluded by the abovenoted two decisions of this court and are accordingly answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.

1984 (2) TMI 70 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Patiala II, Patiala Versus Patram Dass Raja Ram Beri

Delay In Filing Return, Penalty, Registered Firm ......

........... invoked to calculate the assessed tax. The Gauhati and Madras High Courts held that if no penalty could be imposed because of the assessed tax being nil, the assessee was not liable to penalty within the meaning of sub-s. (2) of s. 271. On the other hand, the Gujarat High Court held that the moment the assessee committed default, it was liable to penalty and as such assessed tax has to be calculated in accordance with the said sub-s. (2). But, in the present case, the amount of the assessed tax not being nil and the amount of penalty being capable of quantification, there can be no two opinions that the assessee was liable to penalty within the meaning of sub-s. (2). The Tribunal, therefore, went wrong in holding that the assessee was not liable to penalty even after recording the finding that there was no reasonable cause for not filing the return in time. Consequently, question No. 2 is also answered in the negative and against the assessee. P. C. JAIN, ACTG. C.J. -I agree.

1983 (12) TMI 16 - BOMBAY High Court

MT Kapadia And Another Versus SV Naik And Another

Estate Duty, Practice, Provisional Assessment ......

........... by decision and, therefore, not disputed questions of law. In my judgment, the questions raised by the petitioners were disputed questions of law and, therefore, while passing the provisional assessment order, the Controller could not have ignored the claim of the petitioners and passed a provisional assessment order requiring the petitioners to pay duty of Rs. 30,13,660.69. Therefore, the provisional assessment order passed by respondent No. on September 21, 1979, is set aside and, consequently, also the demand notice issued by respondent No. 1 in pursuance of the said order. It is open to respondent No. 1 to pass a fresh provisional assessment order in accordance with the accounts submitted by the petitioners. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a) of the petition, but this will not prevent respondent No. 1 from passing a fresh provisional assessment order. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

1979 (10) TMI 75 - MADRAS High Court

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras Versus Royal Textiles

Income Tax Act, Provisional Assessment ......

........... nd the Calcutta High Court held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessment should be treated as one under s. 144 on the basis that the assessee had not filed a proper return. The learned judges held There has been a return, though an invalid return, on the basis of which an assessment order under s. 143(3) of the Act has been made. This cannot be treated as best judgment assessment as if no return has been filed. This decision lays down that even an invalid return or a return in a wrong form was a proper return. If in a case where the assessee filed the return in a wrong form prescribed by a different statute that return cannot be said to be a non-existent return, the position would be a fortiori where the assessee files a return by using a wrong form prescribed by the same statute. For the above reasons, the question referred is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. Tile assessee will be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.

1978 (5) TMI 31 - CALCUTTA High Court

Grindlays Bank Limited Versus Income-Tax Officer, H Ward, And Others

Assessment Notice, Income Tax Act ......

........... erefore, accept the contention of Mr. Pal that in disposing of this appeal we should not only set aside the assessment made by the ITO pending the disposal of this appeal but direct him to make a fresh assessment in accordance with law. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed with costs. Hearing fee being assessed at 10 gold mohurs. The impugned notice under s. 142(1) of the Act issued by the ITO on March 4, 1975, is set aside. The assessment made on March 31, 1977, by the ITO in his best judgment based on non-compliance of the above, notice under s. 142(1) of the Act is also set aside and the ITO is directed to make a fresh assessment in accordance with law. In making any such assessment it would be open to the ITO to issue any fresh notice under s. 142(1) of the Act in accordance with law. On the prayer of Mr. Datta, learned advocate for the respondents, we stay the operation of the order for a period of three months from this date. B. C. CHAKRABARTI J.--I agree.

1977 (2) TMI 18 - MADRAS High Court

Rasiklal Kamdar (By L. Rs.) Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras

Delay In Submission, Provisional Assessment ......

........... t is included in the expression advance tax occurring in section 139(1)(iii) is a debatable one and, therefore, the deduction of the tax paid pursuant to the provisional order of assessment cannot be said to be a mistake apparent on the record for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of the income-tax Officer under section 154 of the Act. We are of the opinion that there is no substance whatsoever in this contention, because, having regard to the statutory language extracted above as contained in section 139(1)(iii), the expression advance tax can only mean one thing, viz., the advance tax paid pursuant to the requirement of the statute and cannot mean any other amount and, therefore, there is no question of the point being debatable so as to exclude the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer under section 154 of the Act. The result is that we answer both the questions referred to this court in the affirmative and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.

1971 (4) TMI 17 - DELHI High Court

Orissa Cement Limited Versus Central Board Of Direct Taxes And Others.

Whether the expression "tax payable" used in section 280ZB, means the tax payable upon the regular assessment, as contended by the revenue OR the tax payable upon a self-assessment u/s 140A, as contended by the petitioner ......

1968 (11) TMI 6 - ALLAHABAD High Court

Tika Ram And Sons Private Limited Versus Income-Tax Officer, A-Ward, District Aligarh.

Assessee challenged the notice of demand on the grounds that the ITO was bound to make the provisional assessment on the basis of the return filed by the assessee - petition is allowed - notice of demand u/s 141 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is quashe ......

1968 (9) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court

Jaipur Udhyog Limited And Another Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi And Rajasthan And Another

Provisional assessment of the tax u/s 141 - against the income returned by the company AO allowed deduction as loss carried forward from the earlier years, and made a demand as tax provisionally due - penalty for default in compliance with the demand ......

1966 (4) TMI 1 - BOMBAY High Court

Burmah Shell Refineries Limited Versus GB Chand (Income-Tax Officer) And Another.

Income Tax officer has no jurisdiction to enquire into mixed question of fact and law in a provisional assessment u/s. 141 - assessment and demand notice based on such enquiry can be quashed by the High Court by issuing a writ ......

 
   
 
 
1
 

 

what is new what is new

UpdatesKnowledge SharingSubscription CommunicationNewslettersMore Options




Go to Mobile Website Go To Top
© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.