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.