Farrukhabad Investment (India) Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Agra Third Member)

Related Judgements

1. Samson Maritime Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) 

   It is clear that so called mistake as claimed by the assessee, was only after notices dated 14th January, 2009 were issued under Sections 142 and 143 of the Act. It was only an attempt to preempt the Revenue finding out the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars. Therefore, it…

2. Pr CIT vs. Baisetty Revathi (Andhra Pradesh High Court) 

   On principle, when penalty proceedings are sought to be initiated by the revenue under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the specific ground which forms the foundation therefor has to be spelt out in clear terms. Otherwise, an assessee would not have proper opportunity to put forth his…

3. Maharaj Garage & Company vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) 

   The provision of Section 271(1)(c)(iii) of the Income Tax does not attract the rule of presumption of mens rea and it cannot be equated with the provision in the Criminal Statute. The penalty is for default in complying with the provision, i.e. of furnishing true and correct particulars of…

4. Pr CIT vs. Shree Gopal Housing & Plantation Corporation (Bombay High Court) 

   Each appeal in respect of the order deleting / imposing a penalty by the Tribunal would have to be considered in relation to the facts arising therein and also in the quantum proceedings. It cannot be said as a matter of rule that in case where this Court admits…

5. Pr CIT vs. Dr. Vandana Gupta (Delhi High Court) 

   The assessee merely made a voluntary surrender; she did not offer any explanation as to the nature of income or its source. The observations in MAK Data (supra) are that the authorities are not really concerned with the statement- whether voluntarily or otherwise and have…