Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1979]119ITR688(MP)
..... holding that penalty was leviable at 20% of the tax sought to be avoided, on a misconception of fact that section 271(1)(c), substituted by the finance act, 1968, w.e.f. april 1, 1968, was not attracted. it proceeded on the assumption that the quantum of penalty was governed by clause (iii) as it originally stood. the returns, in ..... it, however, reduced the quantum of penalty to 20 per cent. of the tax sought to be avoided on the hypothesis that the amendment by the finance act, 1968, which came into effect from april 1, 1968, was not retrospective in operation.10. in reaching the conclusion it did, the tribunal rejected the contention of the assessee that (i) the books of ..... logical or rational principle.8. inasmuch as the returns for both the years were filed on april 9, 1968, i.e., after the substitution of new clause (iii) in section 271(1)(c), by the finance act, 1968, w.e.f. april 1, 1968, the iac held that penalty had to be computed by reference to the amount of income concealed. he, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1979)8CTR(MP)11; [1980]121ITR373(MP); 1979MPLJ416
..... on income tax, vol. i, seventh edn., p. 1294], with great respect, we are unable to accept the view taken by the orissa high court.10. the finance act, 1968, which by section 19 'substituted' a new clause (iii) in section 271(1) in place of the then existing clause was assented to by the president on 11th may ..... the explanation were applicable and, if so, whether the tribunal wasright in holding that for fixing the quantum of penalty the provisions as they stood amended by the finance act, 1968, had application ?'2. the assessee is a registered partnership firm deriving income from agency business in cement and truck business. the truck business was a new business ..... would have been avoided if the income as returned by such person had been accepted as the correct income.' 5. by section 19 of the finance act, 1968, which came into force on 1st april, 1968, for clause (iii) in section 271(1), the following clause was substituted :'(iii) in the cases referred to in clause (c), in addition .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1983]139ITR568(MP)
..... the return filed in response the notice under section 148 of the act after april 1, 1968, the penalty proceedings would be governed by section 271(1)(c) of the act as amended by the finance act, 1968, notwithstanding that the said return related to an assessment year prior to april 1, 1968, or that the assessee had initially filed a return in which ..... filed. in the present case, as the wrongfulact of concealing the income was committed on april 20, 1968, the iac wasfully justified in imposing the penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) ofthe act, as amended by the finance act of 19,68, and the tribunal erred inlaw in holding that on the facts and in the circumstances ..... of the case theimposing of penalty under the amended section 271(1)(c) of the act would begiving retrospective effect to it. 8. as a .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1980)15CTR(MP)142; [1980]124ITR680(MP)
..... the quantum of penalty imposable on the assessee for concealment of particulars of income. clause (iii) of section 271(1), as amended by the finance act, 1968 (act 19 of 1968), with effect from 1st april, 1968, was applicable to the case of the assessee for the return was filed and penalty was incurred after the amendment came into effect. the view ..... be determined in accordance with clause (iii) of section 271(1) as it stood in the relevant assessment year and the amendment made with effect from 1st april, 1968, was not applicable. on an application made by the department, the tribunal referred the questions which we have set out above.3. the answer to the first question ..... under section 256(1) of the i.t. act, 1961, referring for our answer the following questions of law :'(1) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the minimum penalty imposable for assessment year 1965-66 for which a return was filed after april 1, 1968, was equal to the concealed income in accordance .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1980]124ITR728(MP)
..... showing his income from truck business. on these facts, the department sought to impose penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the act as amended by the finance act, 1968. this court held that the act of concealment was committed by the assessee on 4-7-66 when he filed his original return and, therefore, the penalty was imposable under the ..... , therefore, the concealment of the income was made by the assessee on that date. according to him, the amended section 271(1)(c) of the act came into force on april 1, 1968, and, therefore, the penalty was rightly imposed by the iac in accordance with the amended provision of law and the tribunal erred in law in holding that by ..... been made when the return for the said year became due and that if the return was not filed on the due date the act of concealment was complete and as that was prior to april 1, 1968, the penalty could not be imposed under the amended provision of law and it had to be in accordance with the provision of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : [1988]170ITR421(MP)
..... : [1979]120itr1(sc) , the relevant assessment year was 1964-65. the return for the said year, however, was filed on april 24, 1968. in the meantime, section 271 of the act was amended by the finance act, 1968, whereby clause (iii) was substituted. the case of the assessee was that since the relevant assessment year was 1964-65, it is the law ..... income of rs. 24,203 from undisclosed sources. according to him, on this finding, the explanation added to section 271(1)(c) of the act with effect from april 1, 1964, by the finance act, 1964, was clearly attracted and in view of that explanation, the burden was on the assessee to prove that failure to return the correct ..... in the past. in this view of the matter, in the instant case, the law ruling on march 19, 1969, when the return was filed and when the act of concealment took place, would be relevant and applicable. we, therefore, find substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant. the tribunal shall consequently have .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1983)35CTR(MP)44; [1983]144ITR178(MP)
..... that case, the question for consideration turned on. the construction of clause (iii) of section 271(1)(c) of the act as it existed prior to 1968. that clause was substituted by the finance act, 1968, with effect from 10th april, 1968, by the following clause ;' in the cases referred to in clause (c) in addition to any tax payable by ..... another, clause, but sofar as the present reference is concerned, we are concerned with the relevant clause (iii) of section 271(1) of the act, which was substituted by the financeact, 1968. the tribunal, therefore, was required to determine theamount of income in respect of which the particulars had been concealedor inaccurate particulars had been furnished. ..... disclosing income of rs. 4,560. the ito, however, assessed the income at rs. 40,000 and initiated proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the act. the explanation submitted by the assessee was not accepted by the iac to whom the reference was made. he held that the assessee had concealed income to the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1982)31CTR(MP)188; [1982]137ITR329(MP)
..... expression used in the definition of 'industrial company' under section 2(6)(d) of the finance act, 1968. (the definition of 'industrial undertaking' under the explanation to section 5(1)(xxxi) is identical with the definition of 'industrial company' under the finance act, 1968). the assessee-company was a printer and publisher of a fortnightly journal, sales tax cases. ..... v. mubarakali khan : [1980]123itr101(all) considered the expression 'industrial undertaking' as defined in the explanation to section 5(1)(xxxi) of the w.t. act. in the above case the assessee was a partner in two firms which were engaged in the manufacture of biris. the firms in which the assessee was a ..... a partnership firm, m/s. mehta & company, petlawad. for the assessment year 1977-78, the assessee claimed exemption under section 5(1)(xxxi) of the w.t. act, 1957, in respect of her capital invested in the firm, m/s. mehta & company, petlawad. according to the assessee the above firm was an 'industrial undertaking' and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1988MPLJ433
..... been avoided if the income as returned by such person had been accepted as the correct income.'5. this clause (iii) was substituted by the finance act, 1968, with effect from april 1, 1968, and continued to be operative till march 31, 1976. the clause so substituted and which was applicable during the relevant assessment year has already been quoted ..... above. thereafter, the taxation laws (amendment) act, 1975, came into force with effect from april 1, 1976, whereby the present clause (iii) was substituted along with ..... evaded, it is not the gross income but the taxable income which would be relevant. we see no reason to hold that during the period from april 1, 1968, to march 31, 1976, when in place of the amount of tax sought to be avoided or evaded, the amount of income was made the basis for .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2006)204CTR(MP)298
..... return in 1966 the assessee concealed his income he was held liable to penalty under section 271(1)(c). the department applied the law amended by finance act of 1968 in determining the quantum of penalty.held, that the quantum was to be determined by the law applicable in 1966 that the revised return not being ..... 271e are liable to be quashed being without jurisdiction.9. in reply, learned counsel for the revenue placing reliance on the decision of supreme court reported in general finance co. v. assistant commissioner (supra), contended that impugned orders do not call for any interference. according to learned counsel, penalty proceedings were rightly initiated against ..... continued by invoking section 6 of the general clauses act after its omission.hence, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the high court and quash the proceedings for prosecution.'14. mere perusal of law laid down by supreme court in the case of general finance co. (supra) would show that their lordships quashed .....
Tag this Judgment!