A.S.ANAND, S.RANGANATHAN, V.RAMASWAMI
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Lucknow – Appellant
Versus
Onkar Saran And Son – Respondent
JUDGMENT
RANGANATHAN, J. :- Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides for the levy of penalty in the case of persons who conceal or furnish inaccurate particulars of the income chargeable under the Act for any assessment year. The Act, as it stood on 1-4-1962, provided that the amount of penalty so imposable was to be measured with reference to the tax sought to be evaded by such an act of the assessee broadly described hereinafter as concealment. The amount of penalty could not be less than 20 per cent or more than 150 per cent of the tax which would have been avoided as a result of the concealment. The Finance Act, 1968 amended Section 27 1 (1)(c) w.e.f. 1-4-1968. In addition to other changes (which are not relevant for our purposes), it changed the measure of the penalty. The penalty was now made dependent upon the amount of income concealed and not on the amount of the tax sought to be avoided. The minimum penalty was now to be 100 per cent of the income concealed and the maximum penalty could go up to 200 per cent of the income concealed. This amendment has substantially stepped up the. amount of penalty that could be levied.. in cases of concealment. It is the a
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Krishna Subh Koran
Commissioner of Income Tax (AddL) v. Jiwan Lal Shah
Commissioner of Income Tax (AddL) v.MewaLalSankathaPrasad
Commissioner of Income Tax (AddL) v.Atma Singh Steel Rolling Mills
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ram Singh Harmohan Singh
Commissioner of Income Tax (AddL) v. Joynder Singh
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bihar Cotton Mills Ltd.
relied on : Brij Mohan v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.