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 - penalty u/s 271(1)(a) not leviable.
1990 (3) TMI 11 - BOMBAY High Court
Harinagar Sugar Mills Limited Versus First Income-Tax Officer And Another
....... - ...... -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
....... - ...... m 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
....... - ...... 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
....... - ...... ndent 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
....... - ...... . 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
....... - ...... 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
....... - ...... n 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 quashed - It is open to the Income-tax Officer to proceed afre ....... - .......
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 complian ....... - .......
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