TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Penalty for 1995-96 set aside, no penalty for 1996-97 due to loss, no substantial question of law</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Chohal Investments Ltd.</h3> The Court set aside the penalty for the assessment year 1995-96 as the Assessing Officer failed to record satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings ... - Issues involved: Appeal u/s 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 challenging penalty under section 271(1)(c) for assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97.For assessment year 1995-96: The Tribunal set aside the penalty as the Assessing Officer did not record satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings against the assessee in the assessment order. The Court found that the recording in the assessment order did not meet the requirement of section 271(1)(c) as per precedents. The Court noted an alternative submission regarding the satisfaction of the officer initiating proceedings under section 271 and decided to await a decision from a larger Bench. On detailed perusal, no satisfaction of the Assessing Officer for initiating penalty proceedings was found. The Court also considered an earlier assessment order for the year 1994-95, which did not provide assistance to the revenue's case.For assessment year 1996-97: The assessed income was a loss due to an appeal effect given by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, making the imposition of penalty inappropriate. The Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose in these appeals and dismissed them.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
