Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court upholds penalty under Indian I.T. Act for deliberate concealment of income</h1> <h3>Northern Bengal Jute Trading Co. Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central), Calcutta</h3> Northern Bengal Jute Trading Co. Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central), Calcutta - [1982] 136 ITR 41, 2 TAXMANN 158 Issues Involved:1. Reopening of assessment under Section 34 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922.2. Imposition of penalty under Section 28(1)(c) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922.3. Justification of penalty imposition based on evidence.Detailed Analysis:Reopening of Assessment under Section 34:The assessment for the year 1947-48 was reopened under Section 34 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, following the Tribunal's direction to reassess the cash credits amounting to Rs. 1,40,000, which were initially scrutinized in the assessment year 1948-49. The assessee's explanation that the amounts were advanced by M/s. Surajmal Nagarmal was rejected by the ITO, AAC, and Tribunal, leading to the inclusion of the said amount as income from undisclosed sources.Imposition of Penalty under Section 28(1)(c):The ITO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 28(1)(c) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, on the grounds that the assessee had concealed the particulars of its income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars. The ITO, with the approval of the IAC, levied a penalty of Rs. 61,250, which was upheld by the AAC and the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had knowingly furnished inaccurate particulars by making false entries in the names of its employees.Justification of Penalty Imposition Based on Evidence:The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation of the cash credits as amounts received from M/s. Surajmal Nagarmal was unsubstantiated. The Tribunal noted that the assessee initially did not claim that the amounts were from M/s. Surajmal Nagarmal and only did so after being caught by the ITO. The Tribunal held that the assessee's actions amounted to deliberate misrepresentation and concealment of income, justifying the penalty under Section 28(1)(c).The court directed the Tribunal to refer the question of law regarding the imposition of penalty. The assessee argued that the penalty was imposed based solely on the assessment proceedings without additional facts or reasons. The court, however, found that the assessee had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars by making false entries in its books and upheld the penalty.Supporting Case Laws:- Northern Bengal Jute Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1968] 70 ITR 407 (Cal): The court previously confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,40,000 as income from undisclosed sources, establishing the assessee's failure to prove the source of the cash credits.- CIT v. Khoday Eswarsa & Sons [1972] 83 ITR 369 (SC): The Supreme Court emphasized that penalty cannot be levied solely based on the assessment order without additional evidence of deliberate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.- Sikri & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1977] 106 ITR 682 (Cal): The court held that failure to prove the source of cash credits alone does not justify penalty without evidence of concealment.- CIT v. Bhowanipur Motor Accessories Agency Pvt. Ltd. [1978] 113 ITR 703 (Cal): The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to set aside the penalty, emphasizing the need for evidence of deliberate concealment.Conclusion:The court concluded that the assessee had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and concealed the same as loans, satisfying the conditions under Section 28(1)(c) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. The question referred was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the revenue, affirming the imposition of the penalty.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found