Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1978 (9) TMI 51

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ermentioned question under s. 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"): "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, penalty could be imposed when the return is filed under s. 139(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ?" The relevant facts are that for the previous year ended on 27th October, 1962, relevant to the assessment year 1963-64, the assessee did not fi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e case of Addl. CIT v. Dongarsidas Biharilal, which we have pronounced today [since reported in [1979] 116 ITR 897 (Pat)]. Accordingly, the question of law has to be reframed as has been done in the said case and after reframing the question, for the reasons given in the said decision, which covers all the arguments that have been raised by the contending parties in this case, the question is answ....