GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (11) TMI 1378 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

2015 (11) TMI 1378 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - TMI - Penalty under Sections 271(1)(b) and 27(1)(c) - undisclosed capital gain - when the petitioner being one of the co-sharer of the properties and when the proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Officer, Ward - I(1), Thanjavur was dropped as against the co-sharers, it is not justifiable on the part of the respondent to initiate action against the petitioner in respect of capital gains from the same properties - Held that:- When the properties sold are .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ith.

Accordingly, the impugned orders are quashed and the matters are remitted back to the respondent for passing orders afresh on merits and in accordance with law. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to forthwith file necessary income tax returns if not filed earlier before the respondent along with the necessary documents so as to substantiate her claim. - Writ Petition Nos. 3 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fore this Court with these writ petitions. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The case of the petitioner is that, Mr.Pavadai Chettiar, the grand father of the petitioner purchased a house property and one Plot at Pattukottai in the year 1961 and after his demise, his legal representatives had sold the said properties and shared the money among themselves. The petitioner further submitted that based on the marke .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(1), Thanjavur accepted the explanation of the petitioner's father and dropped his proposal. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent issued the impugned orders thereby levying penalty against the petitioner, despite the relief granted to other legal heirs for the same set of facts. 4. The main ground raised made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, when the petitioner being one of the co-sharer of the properties and when the proceedings initiated by the Inco .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version