Back
RAJIV SHAKDHER, GIRISH KATHPALIA
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 – Appellant
Versus
Ansal Properties And Infrastructure – Respondent
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral)
CM Appl.37018/2023[Application filed on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay of 320 days in re-filing the appeal]
1. This is an application moved on behalf of the appellant/revenue, seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal.
2. According to the appellant/revenue, the delay involved is 320 days.
3. Mr Tapas Ram Misra, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, says that he has no objection to the prayer made in the application being allowed.
4. It is ordered accordingly. The delay is condoned.
5. The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
ITA 393/2023
6. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12.
7. The appellant/revenue has challenged the order dated 22.02.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, "Act"].
8. Before the Tribunal, the appellant/revenue had assailed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, "CIT(A)"] dated 16.05.2017.
8.1. The appellant/revenue appealed to the Tribunal against the aforementioned order of the CIT(A), whereby penalty amounting to Rs.1,71,40,000/-, imposed by the A
Clarity in penalty notices and the debatable nature of issues at the relevant time can influence the imposition of penalties.
Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 cannot be levied if the assessee did not furnish inaccurate particulars or conceal income. No substantial question of law arises if the Tri....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity for the assessing officer to clearly specify whether penalty is being levied for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate p....
The court's decision was based on the absence of a substantial question of law for consideration in the appeal.
The court has the discretion to condone delay in re-filing appeals and may rely on previous decisions to close appeals.
The principle of condonation of delay and the requirement for a substantial question of law to arise for consideration in an appeal.
The court's decision was based on the lack of substantial question of law arising for consideration and the coverage of the issue by a previous court decision.
The liability to pay interest under Section 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 arises only with respect to the amount specified in the notice of demand issued under Section 156 of the Act, which was ....
The court's decision emphasized that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
