5.2 In Hakam Singh v. CIT

124 ITR 228High Court1980#22360 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2018.

Judgments citing 5.2 In Hakam Singh v. CIT

SOHANLAL M JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 2(1), THANE

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 5776/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri. V. Justin (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…n the part of appellant. Even in the cases of filing of revised return of income showing higher income due to restrain and fear and suspected concealment by the A.O., penalty is held to be imposable by the Hon'ble Court in the cases of Hakam Singh and others, 124 ITR 228 (All.) and Radheshyam, 123 ITR 125 (All.) 4.1 I have also gone through the case laws relied by the appellant and find that these case laws pertained to those circumstances where the surrender was made on the condition that no penalty would be leviable or the surrender was made to buy mental peace and avoid litigation. However, in the present case…

M.SRINIVASAMURTHY,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 21/CHNY/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.21/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2005-06 Shri M. Srinivasamurthy, The Assistant Commissioner Of Old No. 11, New No. 17, No. 35, Vs. Income Tax, Business Circle Ii Inside Golden Gate Apartments, [Dcit Ncc 2 At Present] Habibullah Road, Chennai – 17. Chennai. [Pan:Abyps3050R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Venugopalan, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. C. Yamuna, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.12.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.03.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Chennai Dated 30.10.2015 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2005-06 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri S. Venugopalan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. C. Yamuna, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, “बी” "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" Before Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.21/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2005-06 Shri M. Srinivasamurthy, The Assistant Commissioner of Old No. 11, New No. 17, No. 35, Vs. Income Tax, Business Circle II Inside Golden Gate Apartments, [DCIT NCC 2 at present] Habibullah Road, Chennai – 17. Chennai. [PAN:ABYPS3050R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क"…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.K.Seetha Ramaiah AND Others

The appeal stands dismissed

ITTA/106/2003HC Telangana21 Jun 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 158BSection 3

…we are of the view that the appellants' declaration of concealed income was rightly rejected under Section 3 and the High Court was justified in dismissing the appellants' writ petition there against.” 5.2 In Hakam Singh vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 228 (Allahabad) which reads as under:- “The question is whether a return, filed out of a sense of fear of penalty or prosecution, is voluntary. The I.T. Act does not define the term "voluntarily". The word "voluntary" has been denned in Shorter Oxford Dictionary, Vol. 2, p. 2371, as performed or done of one's own free will, impulse or choice no…