SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(Ker) 113

P.SHANMUGAM, M.M.PAREED PILLAY, P.A.MOHAMMAD
Syed Mohammed – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Income-tax – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The Tribunal and courts discuss whether penalty under S.271(1)(c) is exigible for concealment of income in the 1973-74 assessment. (!) (!) - The Jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to levy penalty under S.274(2) after amendments (and whether valid references were made) is analyzed, including the effect of the 1975 amendment and retrospective application. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - The proper computation of concealment quantum, including whether deductions under S.80T are allowed after set-off of capital losses from earlier years, is addressed. (!) (!) (!) (!)

What is the validity of penalty under S.271(1)(c) in the assessment year 1973-74?

What is the jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to levy penalty after amendments to S.274(2)?

What is the correct method of determining the quantum of concealment and allowable deductions under S.80T in relation to long-term capital losses?


Judgment :-

Mohammed, J.

These Income-tax References arise from a common order passed by the Incometax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, dated 30th May, 1983, in R.A.No. 314 (Coch) 80 at the instance of the assessee and R.A.No. 324 (Coch) 80 at the instance of the Revenue. Both the applications are from the order in I.T.A. No. 150 (Coch) 78-79 relating to the assessment year 1973-74.

2. The questions referred to this court at the instance of the assessee are as follows:

(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in holding that penalty is exigible u/s.271(1)(c) of the Incometax Act for the assessment year 1973-74?

(2) Whether there was a valid reference by the I.T.O. u/s.274(2) to the Inspecting Asstt. Commissioner? The questions referred to at the instance of the Revenue are as follows:

(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also on an interpretation of S.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that "he had concealed the particulars in respect of only that income which he should have disclosed in the return, namely, the capital gains arising from the transaction computed in accordance wit






















































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top