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 rules penalty order under Income-tax Act barred by limitation, favoring assessee.</h1> <h3>Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax, AP Versus NV Ganapathi Rao (By Lrs.)</h3> Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax, AP Versus NV Ganapathi Rao (By Lrs.) - [1978] 115 ITR 277, 1978 CTR 231 Issues Involved:1. Whether the order of penalty dated December 16, 1969, passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is barred by limitation as provided u/s 275 of the said ActRs.Summary:Issue 1: Limitation for Penalty Order u/s 271(1)(c)The core issue was whether the penalty order dated December 16, 1969, by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (IAC) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was barred by limitation as per the provisions of s. 275 of the Act. The assessee contended that the penalty was barred by limitation, a view upheld by the Appellate Tribunal, which followed the decision of the Assam and Nagaland High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sabitri Devi Agarwalla [1970] 77 ITR 934.Arguments and Legal PrecedentsThe revenue argued, citing the Supreme Court decision in Director of Inspection of Income-tax (Investigation) v. Pooran Mall & Sons [1974] 96 ITR 390, that the Tribunal erred in holding that the period of limitation prescribed in s. 275 applies even when a matter is remanded to the original authority. Conversely, the assessee's counsel distinguished the Supreme Court's decision, asserting it did not address the limitation issue under s. 275.Interpretation of s. 275 and Related ProvisionsThe court examined the legislative intent behind s. 275, noting that it prescribes a two-year limitation period for imposing penalties, emphasizing the need for timely completion of quasi-criminal proceedings. The court also considered the absence of provisions for excluding certain periods in computing the limitation under s. 275, unlike s. 153(3) of the Act.Judicial Reasoning and ConclusionThe court rejected the revenue's reliance on CIT v. Kishoresinh Kalyansinh Solanki [1960] 39 ITR 522 (Bom), which dealt with the limitation for orders passed by the Commissioner in revision. The court favored the view expressed by the Assam High Court in CIT v. Sabitri Devi Agarwalla [1970] 77 ITR 934 and the Kerala High Court in Addl. CIT v. K. S. G. Panicker [1974] 97 ITR 525, which emphasized the mandatory nature of the limitation period in s. 275.The court distinguished the Supreme Court's decision in Pooran Mall & Sons' case, noting it pertained to the powers of taxation and not the imposition of penalties. The court concluded that the period of limitation prescribed in s. 275 is mandatory and applies to both the initial and subsequent orders passed after remand.Final JudgmentThe court agreed with the Tribunal's view and answered the question in the affirmative, ruling against the revenue. The penalty order was deemed barred by limitation, and costs were awarded to the assessee with an advocate's fee of 250.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found