Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Versus M/s Jai Laxmi Rice Mills

2015 (11) TMI 1453 - SUPREME COURT

Penalty proceeding under Section 271D - whether penalty proceeding is independent of the assessment proceeding? - Held that:- Penalty order was passed before the appeal of the assessee against the original assessment order was heard and allowed there .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

vive.

The Tribunal as well as the High Court has held that it could not be so for the simple reason that when the original assessment order itself was set aside, the satisfaction recorded therein for the purpose of initiation of the penalt .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

no satisfaction recorded regarding penalty proceeding under Section 271E of the Act, though in that order the Assessing Officer wanted penalty proceeding to be initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, insofar as penalty under Section 271E .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. K. Radha Krishna, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arijit Prasad, Adv. Mr. Gargi Khanna, Adv. Ms. Anil Katyar, Adv. Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, Adv For the Respondent : Mr. Harpreet Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Adv. For M/s. K. J. John & Co .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s for consideration in respect of Assessment Years 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 under the following circumstances: In respect of Assessment Year 1992-1993, assessment order was passed on 26.02.1996 on the basis of CIB information informing the Department .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t ₹ 18,34,584/-. While framing the assessment, the Assessing Officer also observed that the assessee had contravened the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act and because of this the Assessing Officer was satisfied that penalty proceedings und .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rding adequate opportunity to the assessee. After remand, the Assessing Officer passed fresh assessment order. In this assessment order, however, no satisfaction regarding initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271E of the Act was recorded. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e assessee against the original assessment order was heard and allowed thereby setting aside the assessment order itself. It is in this backdrop, a question has arisen as to whether the penalty order, which was passed on the basis of original assessm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version