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

Recent Discussionss:

Franchise fee Service tax RCM Excise Duty Applicable reconcile er1 returns with trial balance/balancesheet Sale of Machinery by SEZ Unit to EOU Two companies in different states c form issued with purchase value excluding cst2% tax amt input tax credit vat annual return filling Import license for restricted items

Income Tax Case Laws - Section: 271F

 

Income Tax


Cases for Section: 271F
 
Showing 1 to 7 of 7 Records
 

2011 (9) TMI 445 - ITAT DELHI

RS. Investment Versus Income-tax Officer, Ward 30(2), New Delhi

Penalty under 271F - No taxable income in last four A/Y - Assessee filed affidavit that original returns have been filed - Held THat:- section 271F are applicable when there is a violation of non-filing the return when notices u/s 153 read with secti ......

2008 (5) TMI 353 - ITAT AGRA

Sanjay Agarwal Alias Sanjay S. Agarwal. Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax.

Delay In Filing Return ......

........... an only be taken into account where pleaded, that still would not explain the delay in its case. 7. Under the circumstances, and in our foregoing discussion of the factual and legal aspects of the case, we are of the view that the assessee has not been able to show, much less, prove, any reasonable causers) for not furnishing the return of income by 31st March, 2004 and, thus, the levy is not saved by s. 273B. As such, the impugned default can only be considered as a conscious disregard of one s statutory obligations, and the penalty stands rightly levied, and is, therefore, upheld. We derive support in our said decision from the judgment of the Hon ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kerala Transport Co., as well as by the Hon ble apex Court in the case of Pradip Lamps Works vs. CIT (2001) 169 CTR (SC) 1 (2001) 249 ITR 797 (SC) and Amin Chand Payarelal vs. IAC (2006) 204 CTR (SC) 585 (2006) 285 ITR 546 (SC). 8. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed.

2007 (12) TMI 186 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus JAYASAKTHI BENEFIT FUND LTD.

Deposits in cash exceeding the prescribed limit - explanation offered with reference to the deposits received by the assessee has been accepted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), and also by the Tribunal - There is no material available on ......

2007 (9) TMI 27 - HIGH COURT , JHARKHAND

OMEC ENGINEERS Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Penalty -Alleged that assessee had received more than permissible amount u/s 269SS in cash and accordingly penalty imposed - Held that there is genuine reason for accepting the cash and accordingly penalty set aside ......

2007 (6) TMI 198 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus VISWAPRIYA FINANCIAL SERVICES AND SECURITIES LTD.

Non deduction of TDS assessee was under bona fide belief that tax is not required to be deducted - Tribunal has given a finding that there is a reasonable cause for not deducting the tax at source - Hence, the Tribunal is justified in deleting the ......

2007 (6) TMI 144 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus LS LAKSHMANASWAMY

Penalty AO imposed penalty on assessee u/s 271B of the Act for not providing any sufficient cause for belated filing of the audit report but rejected by the tribunal on the ground that there is reasonable cause for filing the report belatedly Tri ......

2004 (4) TMI 262 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B

Mrs. Manju Kataruka. Versus Income Tax Officer.

Penalty - For failure to furnish return of income ......

........... the question of imposition of penalty under then s. 271(1)(a) had arisen only after assessment of tax was made and the legislature intended to deem the non-filing of the return to be a continuing default as would be clear from the language used in s. 271(1)(a) and as observed by Hon ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Smt. Maya Rani Punj. The language used in the present s. 271F is quite different from that of then s. 271(1)(a). The ratio laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court in the said case of Smt. Maya Rani Punj rather supports the case of present assessee in the light of distinction between present s. 271F and then s. 271(1)(a). 20. For the aforesaid reasons we, therefore, hold that levy of penalty under present s. 271F is to be imposed as per law prevailing on the date of default. 21. In the ultimate analysis, the order imposing penalty of Rs. 5,000 under s. 271F on the present assessee is cancelled. 22. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed.

 
   
 
 
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.