Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1981 1981 (9) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 263 of 263 Records
-
1981 (9) TMI 3
Delay In Filing Return, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... hich there was reasonable cause for the delay. The question, therefore, is easily answered in favour of the assessee on the basis of the factual finding of the Tribunal. No attempt was made either at the stage of applying for a stated case or at the time of finalising the question of law to challenge the factual finding of the Tribunal as respects the reasonable cause for the delay in the filing of the return for the period other than the three months of the year 1962. In the absence of any appropriate question challenging that factual finding, this question will have to be answered on the basis of the clear conclusion of the Tribunal that the default must be limited, on the facts and on the explanation by the assessee, only to three months. If follows, therefore, that the quantification of the penalty was made by the Tribunal on very correct lines. The reference is accordingly answered against the Department. The assessee will be entitled to its cost. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1981 (9) TMI 2
... ... ... ... ..... ence under section 256(2) of the Act. From the statement of the case, it is clear that the assessment for the relevant year has been set aside. When the assessment itself was set aside, the question of levy of penalty could no longer be a live issue. In order that the penalty proceedings should survive, the assessment proceedings should be alive. As the assessment had been set aside, the penalty proceedings could not have been terminated by the cancellation of penalty. The question as to whether penalty was leviable or not has to be considered in the light of the findings in the assessment to be made as a result of directions given by the Tribunal while setting aside the same. In these circumstances, the Tribunal acted erroneously in cancelling the penalty. In fact, the questions as framed appear to answer themselves and the questions are answered in the negative and in favour of the Department. In the particular circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (9) TMI 1
Held that sub-s. (2) of s. 52 can be invoked only where the consideration for the transfer has been understated by the assessee or, in other words, the consideration actually received by the assessee is more than what is declared or disclosed by him and the burden of proving such an understatement or concealment is on the revenue
....
|
|