Скачать 1.03 Mb.
|TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE|
Subsidiary and integral transactions have to take colour from Principal transactions.
Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT, Mum) 94 ITD 242
Deduct tax from entire sum paid or credited and not merely income component – of the sum
Assiciated Cement Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (SC) 201 ITR 435
Anglo Indian Jute Mills Co. Ltd. Vs Dutt (Cal) 30 ITR 525
Ray and Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mukherjee, ITO (Cal) 36 ITR 365
Payment to non-resident – If no application made by payer to Assessing Officer, Tax Deduction at Source must be on gross sum, irrespective of the income part therein.
Transmission Corporation of A.P Ltd & Anr. Vs CIT (SC) 239 ITR 587
DCIT Vs Mayurika S. Poddar (ITAT, Mum) 59 TTJ 372
Czechoslovak Ocean Shipping International Joint Stock Co. & Anr. Vs ITO (Cal) 81 ITR 162
Cheminor Drugs Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT, Hyd) 76 ITD 37
Poompuhar Shipping Corporation Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT,Chennai) 109 ITD 226
West Asia Maritime Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT, Chennai) 111 ITD 155
Payment in kind to non-resident – TDS provisions applicable
Kanchanganga Sea Food Ltd. Vs CIT (AP) 265 ITR 644
Tax Deduction at Source on salaries – Employer is responsible – No arrangement or agreement privately arrived at between employer & employee can affect / modify the statutory liability.
John Patterson & Co.(India) Ltd. Vs ITO & Ors. (Cal) 36 ITR 449
Assessee agreed to pay tax-free salary to employees and assessee was liable to pay tax on such tax-free salary – Amount of tax payable has also to be treated as part of salary and TDS to be made out of that. If assessee failed to deduct tax on that part, interest leviable u/s 201(1A).
British Airways Vs CIT (Cal) 193 ITR 439
Asian Dev. Service Vs CIT (Ker) 239 ITR 713
Tax Deduction at Source applicable on Transport contractors also.
CBDT Vs Cochin Goods Transport Association (Ker) 236 ITR 9093
Birla Cement Works Vs CBDT & Ors. (Raj) 139 CTR 540
Landing fee and parking fee for aircrafts amounts to rent for 194 I purposes
United Airlines Vs CIT (Del) 287 ITR 281
Assessee sold its products through distributors by paying commission – liable to make TDS.
Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT, Jp) 97 ITD 105
Assessee engaged in business of providing cellular mobile phone services – Sold SIM and pre-paid cards to its franchisees at a fixed rate below market price for onward sale to the ultimate customers – the margin was commission payments _ tax deductible
ACIT Vs Bharti Cellular Ltd. (ITAT, Kol) 105 ITD 129
License holders purchasing country liquor from Government distilleries and selling it to retail shops – Tax Collection at Source compulsory
Rudra & Co. & Ors. Vs Union of India (HP) 233 ITR 66
S.K.G. Sugar Ltd Vs CIT & Anr. (Pat) 236 ITR 338
Assessee having whole sale business in liquor – Has to collect tax including excise duty, cost of label etc. plus surcharge on sales to retailers.
S.K.G. Sugar Ltd. Vs CIT & Anr.(Patna) 236 ITR 338
Amount described in lease agreement as security deposit – Agreement providing for reduction of security deposit every month by amount of rent payable – Security deposit was in effect advance rent – Tax to be deducted at source on entire security deposit
CIT Vs Reebok India Company (Del) 291 ITR 455
Loans taken in individual capacities by the Directors – Cheques taken by them in the name of company and transferred to their accounts – Repayment of loan and interest also routed through the company – Company bound to deduct tax at source when it is paying interest to the creditor.
CIT Vs Century Building Industries P. Ltd. (SC) 293 ITR 194
Liability to deduct tax, when interest is credited to books.
Southern Brick Works Ltd. Vs CIT (Mad) 146 ITR 479
ITO Vs D. Manoharlal Kothari (Mad) 236 ITR 357
Interest paid on credit purchases overdue for payment – TDS provisions applicable on such interest.
A&M Agencies Vs CIT (Mad) 101 Taxman 655
Tax Deduction at Source to be made on gross interest and not on net interest payable after mutual set off between parties.
CIT Vs S.K. Sundararamier & Sons (Mad) 240 ITR 740
Assessee engaged in providing financial service including fund management – obligation on part of assessee to deduct tax on interest payment in view of 2(28A)
Viswapriya Financial Services & Secuties Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT, Mad) 60 ITD 401
Original order u/s 201 r.w.s. 194 B set-aside by CIT(A) in 1989 to be redone – Fresh order passed in 1995 - valid.
Instalment prize scheme – Lucky draw every month – winner need not pay balance instalments→Lottery scheme – 194B applicable.
Lakshmi Ganeswara Enterprises & Financiers Vs ITO (ITAT, Hyd) 72 ITD 295
Compensation on acquisition of land – Duty of Land Acquisition Officer to deduct tax at source if amount paid after 01-10-2004 exceeds the prescribed limit – If tax not to be deducted, assessee to produce necessary certificate from Assessing Officer.
Nalini Vs Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (Ker) 294 ITR 423
Compensation awarded by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Tax to be deducted at source
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mitaben Dharmeshbhai Shah & Ors. (Guj) 269 ITR 63
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mani & Ors. (Mad) 270 ITR 394
Purchase of ship for breaking up – Usance interest paid to Non-resident – Tax to be deducted at source.
CIT Vs Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation (Guj) 261 ITR 113
Appointing Lead Manager to GDR issue – commission received is for technical services – liable for tax deduction at source
Raymond Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT, Mum) 86 ITD 791
US Company to deliver technical designs / plan for use in India and to ensure that the plan is strictly executed in India – Technical Services – Tax Deductible at Source.
Gentex Merchants (P) Ltd Vs DDIT (ITAT, Kol) 94 ITD 211
Payment to expatriate technicians by foreign employers having Permanent Establishment in India, on account of remuneration for services rendered in India – liable to tax – TDS apply.
Pride Foramer S.A. Vs ACIT (ITAT, Del) 97 ITD 86
Failure to deduct tax – Levy of interest is mandatory – Payment of tax subsequently by recipient is not relevant.
CIT Vs Rathi Gum Industries (Raj) 213 ITR 98,
CIT Vs Dhanalashmy Weaving Works ( Ker ) 245 ITR 13
Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd. Vs V.P. Damle, ITO & Ors. (Bom) 157 ITR 812
Pentagon Engg. Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT (Bom) 212 ITR 92
CIT Vs Prem Nath Motors (P) Ltd. (Del) 253 ITR 705
CIT Vs Ramesh Enterprises (Mad) 250 ITR 464 – recipient filed loss return – not
a reasonable consideration.
Jubilee Investments & Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT (Cal) 238 ITR 648
ITO Vs Kodaikanal Finance Ltd.(ITAT, Mad) 55 ITD 480
Thai Airways International Ltd. Vs ACIT ( ITAT, Del ) 98 ITD 123 - 201(1A) interest
even when no recovery u/s 201
Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage P. Ltd. Vs CIT (SC) 293 ITR 226
ACIT Vs Adani Exports Ltd. (ITAT,Ahd-TM) 109 ITD 101
Failure to make TDS u/s 194A – 201 (1A) interest valid – Since the finding of Assessing Officer that assessee has committed default has become final, it is not permissible to reopen the issue of liability either of payer or payee.
Quilon Sea foods Vs Tax Recovery Officer (Ker) 155 CTR 533
271C penalty initiated on 6.1.97 – Order passed on 31.7.97 – Not time barred
Mitsui & Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT, Del) 65 TTJ 1
272A(2) penalty for non-filing of Form No.26A leviable eventhough TDS was made and paid to Government.
Shah Traders Vs DCIT (ITAT, Pat) 56 ITD 33
Failure due to oversight or preoccupation – Not a reasonable cause.
SBI capital markets Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT, Bom) 57 ITD 72
Failure to deposit TDS- Liable to penalty u/s 221 irrespective of whether interest was paid or not.
Jubilee Investments & Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT (Cal) 238 ITR 648
197A default – 272A(2)(f) penalty for default in submitting copy of each declaration separately.
Escorts Employees Ancillary Ltd. Vs CIT (ITAT, Del-TM) 74 ITD 1
Payment to sub-contractor – No exemption certificate produced – Liable to deduct tax – Liable to file TDS return u/s 206 even when no Tax was deducted at source – Penalty leviable – Any partner is principal officer of a firm.
ACME Construction Co. Vs DCIT (ITAT, Pat) 68 ITD 1
Failure to make TDS from remuneration paid to Directors and interest credited in ‘interest payable’ a/c. – Prosecution of Director –principal officer – Expln. to 194A(1) is clarificatory & retrospective in operation.
ITO Vs D. Manoharlal Kothari (Mad) 236 ITR 357
ACIT (TDS) has jurisdiction over TDS matters.
Jubilee Investments & Industries Ltd. Vs ACIT (Cal) 238 ITR 648
Mittal Steel Ltd. Vs ACIT & Anr. (Kar) 240 ITR 707
‘SE’ was authorized person at Chandrapur to make TDS and remit the same (eventhough H.O. of company is at Mumbai & assessed there) – ITO Chandrapur has jurisdiction to levy 201(1A) interest.
ITO Vs Supdtg. Engr, O&M Division, MSEB(ITAT, Nag) 63 ITD 49
A trust cannot be treated as an individual and as such is not exonerated from requirement of sec.194A.
ITO Vs Subhash Metal Industries (ITAT, Bom) 44 ITD 677
Even if assessee wins in appeal no need to refund TDS for which certificate already issued to payee.
Samcor Glass Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT, Del) 94 ITD 202
Credit for foreign tax can be allowed to the extent of foreign tax liability in India to NIL and no refund out of that.
JCIT Vs Digital Equipments India Ltd. (ITAT, Mum) 94 ITD 340
Credit for Tax Deducted at Source can be given only to the extent of proportionate income offered for assessment
Pardeep Kumar Dhir Vs ACIT (ITAT, Chd-TM) 107 ITD 118
Failure to deduct tax – No mens rea required for penalty – Payment of tax by recipient does not absolve the deductor
Kanha Vanaspati Ltd Vs ACIT 2007-TIOL-400-ITAT-DEL
Assessee enters into agreement with non-resident company for supply of design, drawings and consultancy for development of automobile engines – As per the agreement, assessee to re-imburse expenses of personnel of non-resident company coming to India for imparting technical expertise to assessee’s staff – Eventhough non-resident does not have any PE in India, since the agreement was entered into for rendering technical services and services of the experts were requisitioned in that connection, payment of re-imbursement also liable for TDS
Ashok Leyland Ltd. Vs DCIT 2008-TIOL-205-ITAT-MAD
SBI was managing and clearing cheques through MICR centre by rendering managerial service which falls within the definition of technical services – payment made to SBI is liable for TDS
Canara Bank Vs ITO 2008-TIOL-205-ITAT-AHD
INTERESTS UNDER I.T. ACT
Charge of interest not appealable unless assessee not liable to levy at all.
Central Provinces Mabgabese Ore Co. Ltd Vs CIT (SC) 160 ITR 961
Accrual of 220(2) interest is automatic – No opportunity to be given before levy.
J. Jayalalitha Vs CIT & Ors. (Mad) 244 ITR 74
Addition deleted by CIT(A) – Later on addition upheld by ITAT – Demand notice got revived – 220(2) interest from original order.
Super Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs CIT & Anr. (Mad) 244 ITR 814
One addition in original assessment order set-aside by Tribunal – 220(2) interest to be charged from date of original order itself.
B. Indira Rani Vs CIT & Ors. (Ker) 237 ITR 20
K. Venugopalan Nambiar Vs CIT ( Ker ) 231 ITR 607
Interest levied u/s.220(2) – Not appealable
ANZ Grindlays Bank PLC Vs CIT (Cal) 241 ITR 269
234 B & 234 C are compensatory in nature – Provisions are valid.
Dr. S. Reddappa & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Kar) 232 ITR 62
Nemi Chand Jain & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors. (MP) 234 ITR 764
CIT Vs R. Ramalingan (Ker) 241 ITR 753
Interest u/s.234A, 234B and 234C – mandatory – No right to be heard before imposition of interest.
Union Home Products Ltd & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.(Kar) 215 ITR 758
CIT Vs Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & ors. (SC) 252 ITR 1
234B interest can be levied upto date of 143(1) and thereafter be increased if 143(3) order is passed subsequently.
Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT, Coch) 57 ITD 16
Grasim Industries Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT, Mum) 64 TTJ 357
ACIT Vs Telsa Transformers (P) Ltd. (ITAT, Indore) 72 ITD 459
Hindustan Sanitary Engineers Vs ITO (ITAT, Asr) 95 ITD 226 – upto the date of
Failure to charge 234A interest – Mistake apparent from record – 154 possible.
ACIT vs Santosh Kumar Soni (ITAT, All) 57 ITD 220
When profit computed u/s.115J, interest u/s 234B, 234C can be charged.
Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs ACIT (ITAT, Cal-SB) 45 ITD 22
Beta Naphthol P. Ld. Vs DCIT (ITAT, Ind) 50 TTJ 375
Assam Bengal Carriers Ltd. Vs CIT (Gau) 239 ITR 862
ACIT Vs B.N. Rathi Securities Ltd. (ITAT, Hyd) 71 ITD 31
CIT Vs Holiday Travels P. Ltd. (Mad) 263 ITR 307
Tax liability increased on account of Retrospective amendment – 234B leviable.
ACIT Vs Prime Securities Ltd. (ITAT, Mum) 95 ITD 249
For levying 234 B interest, no need to pass speaking order
CIT Vs Computer Graphics Ltd. (Mad) 285 ITR 84
Assessing Officer accepting delayed return as one filed in response to notice under section 148 – Liability to 234 interest arises
CIT Vs Kalpaka Transport Co. Ltd. (Ker) 287 ITR 15
So long as a final order u/s.132(5) is not passed, ITO cannot release a portion of seized money nor can he direct that the seized money be adjusted towards the existing liability of advance tax – 234 B & 234C leviable irrespective of seized cash lying with Department.
Ramjilal Jagannath & Ors. Vs ACIT (MP) 241 ITR 758
Sec. 234D is in operation from 1-6-2003 ie. if regular assessment is made on or after 1-6-2003, 234D interest to be charged irrespective of assessment year and irrespective of the date of granting refund
Sigma Aldrich Foreign Holding Co. Vs ACIT (ITAT, Bang) 104 ITD 95
Amount of TDS though deducted not paid to Central Government – No interest u/s 244A in respect of such amounts
ACIT Vs Shri Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd. (ITAT, Rajkot) 104 ITD 185
Refunds arose out of assessment u/s 172(7) r.w.s. 143(3) – No interest u/s 244(1A)
Lloyd Triestino Vs DCIT (ITAT, Mum) 70 ITD 33
On date of regular assessment, self assessment tax loses its identity and assumes character of tax paid as per Demand Notice u/s 156 – 244A interest from date of assessment order till date of actual refund and not from date of payment self assessment tax.
Dhanvi Trading & Investment (P) Ltd. Vs Assessing Officer (ITAT, Ahd) 72 ITD 245
Sutlej Industries Limited Vs ACIT (ITAT, Del) 86 ITD 335
PENALTIES UNDER I.T. ACT
Reassessment proceedings – Imposition of penalty for concealment in original proceeding.
CIT Vs Angara Satyam (AP) 37 ITR 230
C.V. Govindarajulu Iyer Vs CIT (Mad) 16 ITR 391
Dayabhai Girdharbai Vs CIT (Bom) 32 ITR 677
Arunachalam Chettiar 6 ITC 58
CIT Vs Gopal Krishna Singhania (All) 89 ITR 27
K.C. Mukherjee & Anr. Vs CIT (Pat) 37 ITR 224
Malbary & Bros Vs CIT (Bom) 44 ITR 674
Cash credits discovered in accounts – Assessee agreeing to inclusion of such credits in assessment – onus shifts to assessee in penalty proceedings to show that amount was not concealed income.
Western Automobiles (India) Vs CIT (Bom) 112 ITR 1048
CIT Vs W.J. Walker and Co. (Cal) 117 ITR 690
CIT Vs Prathi Hardware Stores (Orissa) 203 ITR 641
Lenses centre Vs ITO (ITAT, Hyd) 49 TTJ 21
CIT Vs Jamnadas & Co. (Guj) 210 ITR 218
CIT Vs Ganpatrai Gajanand (Orissa) 108 ITR 403
New Vijay Agency Vs ACIT (ITAT, Mad) 74 ITD 504
Addl. CIT Vs Bhoopathy (Mad) 113 ITR 188
Durga Timber Works Vs CIT (Del) 79 ITR 63
If the assessee failed to give accurate particulars as to his income, he can be found to be acting dishonestly – cash credit assessed – Penalty upheld.
CIT Vs Drapco Electric Corporation (Guj) 122 ITR 341
Mohan Ram Ram Kumar Vs CIT (All) 59 ITR 135
Sec. 68 is deeming provision – Still penalty is leviable
Chuharmal Vs CIT ( SC ) 172 ITR 250
CIT Vs Aboo Mohmed ( Kar ) 160 CTR 128
Unexplained investment – Deemed to be income for the purpose of levying penalty – If no satisfactory explanation regarding investment, penalty leviable.
Loknath Chowdhary Vs CIT (Cal) 155 ITR 291
Rahmat Development & Engineeing Corporation Vs CIT (Cal) 130 ITR 602
Concealment of income – revised return filed – penalty valid.
CIT Vs Haji P. Mohammed (Ker) 132 ITR 623
Mahavir Metal Works Vs CIT (P&H) 92 ITR 513
ACIT Vs Dr. S.N. Gupta (ITAT, Del) 56 ITD 440
Calicut Trading Co. Vs CIT (Ker) 178 ITR 430,
Ramachandra D. Thakur (HUF) Vs ITO (ITAT, Mum) 61 ITD 279
B. Indira Rani Vs ITO (ITAT, Coch) 66 ITD 311
Addl. CIT Vs Bhartia Bhandar (MP) 122 ITR 622
C.E. Baily Vs DCIT (ITAT, Del) 66 ITD 1
Badri Prasad Om Prakash Vs CIT (Raj) 163 ITR 440
S.R. Arulprakasam Vs Prema Malini Vasan, ITO (Mad) 163 ITR 487
F.C. Agarwal Vs CIT (Gauhati) 102 ITR 408
CIT Vs J.K.A. Subramania Chettiar (Mad) 110 ITR 602
CIT Vs K. Mahim (Ker) 149 ITR 737, 232 ITR 115
Sivagaminatha Moopanar & Sons Vs CIT (Mad) 52 ITR 591
Ravi & Co. Vs ACIT (Mad) 271 ITR 286
Burden of proof – Assessee filing revised returns showing much larger income – Not able to establish inadvertent mistake or omissions in original returns – Penalty justified
G.C. Agarwal Vs CIT (SC) 186 ITR 571
Addition based on estimate – concealment penalty can be levied
Addl. CIT Vs Chandrakantha and another (MP) 205 ITR 607
Addl. CIT Vs Lakshmi Industries and cold storage Co. Ltd. (All) 146 ITR 492
Sushil Kumar Sharad Kumar Vs CIT (All) 232 ITR 588
CIT Vs Md. Warasat Hussain (Patna) 171 ITR 405
A.M. Shah & Co. Vs CIT (Guj) 238 ITR 415
CIT Vs Krishnaswamy and Sons (Mad) 219 ITR 157
CIT Vs Swarup Cold Storate & General Mills (All) 136 ITR 435
CIT Vs Chandra Vilas Hotel (Guj) 291 ITR 202
Survey of business premises – impounding of books of a/c - assessee agreeing to assessment – imposition of penalty valid –
CIT Vs C. Ananthan Chettiar (Mad) 273 ITR 401
CIT Vs K. A. Sampath Reddy (Kar) 197 ITR 232
Biland Ram Hargan Das Vs CIT (All) 171 ITR 390
Banaras Chemical Factory Vs CIT (All) 108 ITR 96
CIT Vs Popular Lunghi Co. (Mad) 238 ITR 229
LMP Precision Engg. Co. Ltd,. Vs DCIT (ITAT, Ahd) 64 ITD 42
P.C. Joseph & Bros. Vs CIT ( Ker ) 240 ITR 818
M.S. Mohammed Marzook Vs ITO ( Mad ) 283 ITR 254
CIT Vs Dr. A. Mohammed Abdul Khader ( Mad ) 260 ITR 650
CIT Vs Mahabit Prasad Bajaj (Jhar) 298 ITR 109
M.N. Rajaraman Vs DCIT 2008-TIOL-293-ITAT-MAD
Revised return filed after books were impounded – penalty upheld
CIT Vs A. Sreenivasa Pai (Ker) 242 ITR 29
Amount requisitioned u/s 132A – No immunity under amnesty – Amount included in return, but no proof of source of acquisition of that asset – 271(1)(c) leviable
CIT v. Aboo Mohmed (Kar) 250 ITR 313
Cash seized by Police authorities – surrender of amount for assessment – penalty leviable
CIT Vs Mohd Mohtram Farooqui (Raj) 259 ITR 132
Search and seizure – Discovery of concealed income during search – Return not filed on time and tax not paid on time in respect of such income – 271(1)© penalty upheld
Surender Paul Vs CIT (P&H) 287 ITR 223
Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs CIT (P&H) 287 ITR 376
CIT Vs R. Kesavan Nair (Ker) 287 ITR 276
“Voluntarily” means out of free will without any compulsion - criteria for deciding – If Department has incriminating material with regard to disclosed income, disclosure is not voluntary and vice versa –
K.L. Swamy Vs CIT (Kar) 239 ITR 386 – search in third party’s premises
Bhairav Lal Verma Vs Union of India (All) 230 ITR 855
M. Sajjanraj Nahar & Ors. Vs CIT ( Mad ) 283 ITR 230
Admission of assessee during assessment regarding concealment – No independent enquiry to prove concealment necessary in penalty proceedings.
H.V. Venugopal Chettiar Vs CIT (Mad) 153 ITR 376
Simply because assessee agreed to addition of concealed income after detection thereof and filed return in response to notice u/s 148 offering additional income, assessee cannot escape from 271(1)( c ) penalty.
P.C. Joseph & Bros Vs CIT (Ker) 240 ITR 818
Penalty leviable on agreed additions
Polo Singh & Co. Vs CIT ( Del ) 98 ITR 564
CIT Vs Krishna & Co. ( Mad ) 120 ITR 144
CIT Vs Dr. R.C. Gupta & Co. ( Raj ) 122 ITR 567
Mirzapur Construction Company Vs CIT ( All ) 122 ITR 828
Union Engineering Co. Vs CIT ( Ker ) 122 ITR 719
ITO Vs Leela Mammen ( ITAT, Cochin ) 63 TTJ 252
Jaswant Rai & Another Vs CBDT & Ors. ( Del ) 133 ITR 19
CIT Vs Gates Foam & Rubber Co. ( Ker ) 91 ITR 464
CIT Vs P.B. Shah & Co. (Pvt. ) Ltd. ( Cal ) 113 ITR 587
Rathnam & Co. Vs IAC ( Mad ) 124 ITR 376
ACIT Vs S.M. Kannappa Automobiles (P) Ltd. ( ITAT, Bang ) 72 ITD 474
Letter of assessee saying “penalty may not be levied” – Not an understanding that penalty will not be levied – Penalty can be levied.
Anand Liquors Vs CIT (Ker) 232 ITR 35
CIT Vs D.K,.B and Co. (Ker) 243 ITR 618
Rathnam & Co. Vs IAC (Mad) 124 ITR 376
Income claimed in Part III of Return and claimed to be exempt as prize money – claim held as false – 271(1)( c) levy valid.
CIT Vs Abdulgafur Ahmed Wagmar (Guj) 199 ITR 827
Dr. K.D. Arora Vs CIT (Patna) 162 ITR 481
Lal Chand Gopal Das Vs CIT (All) 48 ITR 324
V.P. Samtani Vs CIT (Cal) 140 ITR 693
Mere disclosure of receipts as cash credits in Part III of return – still concealment is there.
CIT Vs Vidyagauri Natverlal & Ors. (Guj) 238 ITR 91
Deliberate under valuation of stock – Penalty upheld
Sree Nithyakalyani Textiles Ltd. Vs DCIT ( Mad ) 282 ITR 154
Failure to disclose interest received u/s 244A – Penalty upheld
Thirupathy Kumar Khemka Vs CIT (Mad) 291 ITR 122
Failure to declare in accounts receipt of amount from Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board - Not a bonafide mistake - Showing lower receipt of income itself proves concealment - penalty upheld.
Sandeep Kumar Garg and co. Vs ITO (P&H) 298 ITR 106
Wrong claim of deduction towards payment of housing loan interest – penalty upheld
ITO Vs Mool Chand Gupta (ITAT, Del) 110 ITD 89
Bogus claim of depreciation on non-existing assets – Withdrawal of claim in revised return filed after search – penalty upheld
CRN Investments P. Ltd. Vs CIT (Mad) 300 ITR 342
Declaring value of jewellery in Wealth Tax return at a very low figure – concealment penalty leviable
ACWT Vs Lata Rani Mehta (ITAT, Del) 69 ITD 173
Discrepancies in closing stock and accounting , low Gross Profit – when confronted, assessee agreed for addition of Rs. 30,000 on the condition that no penalty be levied – 271(1)(c ) penalty levied – upheld
India Ceramic Corporation (ITAT, Del) 93 Taxman (Mag) 83
Failure to disclose capital gains in original as well as revised returns – concealment penalty leviable eventhough it was disclosed in the second revised return.
CIT Vs Sova Bajoria (Cal) 232 ITR 202
Assessee failed to produce purchase & sale register and stock register – Failed to furnish particulars of brokers through whom alleged bogus purchases made – Concealment penalty valid.
Beena Metals Vs CIT (Ker) 240 ITR 222
Wrong claim of depreciation will amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
ITO Vs Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd. (ITAT, All) 23 ITD 448
Depreciation and Investment Allowance claimed in respect of machinery – Machinery not reaching assessee’s premises before close of accounting year – Assessee later withdrawing claim – Penalty upheld
CIT Vs Sree Valliappa Textiles (Kar) 294 ITR 322
False inflation of expenses/any deductible item for computing income – falsity of entries - Penalty levied.
CIT Vs Gates Foam and Rubber Co. (Ker) 91 ITR 464
Anand Liquors Vs CIT (Ker) 232 ITR 35
ACIT Vs Mcleod Russel (I) Ltd. (ITAT, Kol) 101 ITD 39
Agricultural income boosted up – Colourable device – Penalty leviable.
CIT Vs Ramanujam Thampi & Ors. (Ker) 233 ITR 521
Addition on account of low withdrawal for household expenses –Concealment penalty upheld.
Sushil Kumar Sharad Kumar (All) 232 ITR 588
Difference in cost of construction of building treated as unexplained investment - 271(1)(c ) penalty leviable.
Loknath Chowdhury Vs CIT (Cal) 155 ITR 291
Rahmat Development & Engineering Corporation Vs CIT (Cal) 130 ITR 602
Failure to disclose share of spouse and minor children in firm - amounts to concealment.
CIT Vs P.K. Kochammu Amma Peroke (SC) 125 ITR 624
ITO Vs C.V. Hakkapakki (ITAT, Bang) 64 ITD 467
If an assessee consciously conceals income arising u/s 41, Penalty leviable.
Hindustan Tools Mfg. Co. Vs CIT (P&H) 102 ITR 174
CIT Vs Aya Singh Ishar Singh (P&H) 92 ITR 182
Assessee admitting income from lorries in earlier year – No income shown in subsequent year – claims that lorries were sold – Permits continue in assessee’s name – Assessee cannot show that lorries were sold – Penalty valid.
CIT Vs Mir Mohamed Ali (Mad) 128 ITR 215
Notice u/s 17 issued and service attempted – service avoided by assessee – Return filed thereafter – Not “voluntary and in good faith”.
Ram Lal Sunaja Vs CWT & Anr. (All) 224 ITR 109
Penalty leviable on additions which was neither disclosed in 273A petition or Return of Income nor any explanation given.
M.Ethirajan Vs ACIT (ITAT, Mad) 65 ITD 87
80J claim made in 72-73 and allowed – In that process, made that year as initial year as per 80J(1) – Again claim made wrongly in AY 80-81 – Filed inaccurate particulars – penalty leviable.
ACIT Vs Hindustan Conductors (P) Ltd. (ITAT, Mum) 58 ITD 410
Assessee following mercantile system – Failure to include accrued interest in returns – No evidence to show change in method of accounting or interest did not accrue – Penalty valid
James Finlay & Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (Cal) 144 ITR 423