Under the general provision relating to Partnership Act that partnership firm is not a juristic person and for inter relationship different remedies are provided to enforce the rights arising out of their inter se transactions, the issue about separate entities apart, it cannot be doubted that the assessee has acted bona fide and his plea that inter se transactions
Ordinarily where the Income-tax Officer is satisfied about the genuineness of the transaction and payment and identification of the cash payment is established, the Income-tax Officer shall record his satisfaction about the fulfilment of the conditions for allowing the benefit of Rule 6DD(j). Apparently, Section 40A(3) was intended to penalize the tax evader and not the honest transactions and that is why after framing of Rule 6DD(j)
From a plain reading of Sub-section (2) of Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it is clear that only Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is mentioned in Section 54(2) in the context that the unutilised portion of the capital gain on the sale of property used for residence should be deposited before the date of furnishing the return of the Income-tax under Section 139
This appeal is arising out of the order of the Tribunal dt. 27th April, 2001 sustaining the penalty levied against the assessee-appellant under Section 271B for failure on the part of the assessee to get its accounts audited and obtain the report of such audit before the date prescribed under Section 44AB.
In the case of CIT v. Suraj Bhan [2007] 159 Taxman 26 Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High held that when an assessee files a revised return showing higher income and gives an explanation that he offered higher income to buy peace of mind and avoid litigation, penalty cannot be imposed merely on account of higher income having been subsequently declared.
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja J.- The present appeals are filed under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Revenue, against the order dated July 29, 2004, in I.T.A. Nos. 2075 and 2076 (Mds)/96 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “C” Bench, raising the following substantial question of law:
HC held that Revenue is to be definitely restrained in terms of Section 205 of the Act from enforcing any demand on the assessee-petitioner insofar as the demand with reference to the amount of tax which had been deducted by the tenant of the assessee in the present case, and assuming that the tenant had not remitted the amount to the Central Government. The only course open to the Revenue is to recover the amount from the very person who has deducted and not from the petitioner.
If we look at the scheme for the provision of deduction of tax at source, it becomes obvious that such person is acting on behalf of the Revenue, i.e.,as an agent of the Revenue. In fact, the person is enabled statutorily to make deduction and remit the amount to the Central Government, though in the instant case, the person who has deducted the amount may be the tenant or lessee of the petitioner and there is such inter se relationship as between the two,
The apex court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa had long ago settled the law that penalty is not to be ordinarily imposed unless the party either acted deliberately in defiance of law and was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard of its obligations. Penalty will also not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so.
Explore the legal implications of extinguishment of property rights in the CIT vs. Smt. Laxmidevi Ratani case at the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Uncover the details of the dispute, the compromise, and the tax implications. Understand the court’s ruling on whether the amount of Rs. 7,34,000 is considered a capital receipt subject to capital gains tax, as per Section 2(47) of the IT Act. Stay informed on the legal precedents cited, including the Bombay High Court decisions and the Supreme Court’s stance on property rights extinguishment.
