Taxman 488 (SC) 5. Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa, 82 ITR 26, (SC) 6. Brij Mohan v. CIT

M/S Banna Lal Jat Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Bhilwara vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

Appeal is partly allowed by reducing the penalty to the

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

…ore, the contention is that penalty could be imposed as per law applicable on the date of violation of the provision of law, and not as on the date of passing of the penalty order. In support of this contention, Ld. AR has relied on B.N. Sharma vs. CIT (1997) 226 ITR 442 (SC). In this regard, suffice it to state that no submission to the contrary has been put forth by ld. DR for the department. 16. As noticed above, cash to the tune of Rs. 1,21,43,210/- recovered from the residence of Shri Banna Lal Jat, as per his own admission in the 15 M/s Banna Lal Jat Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Bilwara. statement recorded on 1…

ACIT, Kota vs. Harbans Lal Sethi, Kota

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

…Lal Sethi, Kota. particulars of income or furnish inaccurate particulars of income. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following decisions :- Brij Mohan vs. CIT 120 ITR 1 (SC) CIT vs. Onkar Saran & Sons, 195 ITR 1 (SC) B.N. Sharma vs. CIT 226 ITR 442 (SC) 4. Having considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record, we note that if the assessee has not declared the surrendered income in the return of income and also not filing revised return of income, then the case of the assessee would certainly fall in the category of furnishing incorrect particulars of income in…