Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act

Jasbir Singh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeal is allowed and the order of the Tribunal dated 20

Joginder Paul vs. CIT Aayakar Bhagwan Rishi Nagar

The appeal is dismissed

CIT Jalandhar vs. Ashwani Trehan, Jalandhar

C.I.T Rohtak vs. M/S Rajdhani Wine Trades Bhiwani

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. U.V.Zuhara

M/S Hemyog Hotel(P) Ltd vs. CIT Patiala

Rajesh Sayal vs. CIT, Chandigarh

The appeal is dismissed

Commnr. of Income Tax, Udaipur vs. Mcdowell & Co. Ltd

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: The High Court Are As Follows: (1) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The I.T.A.T. Was Justified In Holding That The Unpaid Amount Of Bottling Fee Has, On Furnishing Of The Bank Guarantee, To Be Treated As Actual Payment & Accordingly Allowing The Deduction In Respect Of The Same Under Section 43B Of The Act, Even Though The Sum Has Not Been Actually Paid Before The Due Date Of Filing The Return Under Section 139(1) Of The Act. (2) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The I.T.A.T. Was Justified In Allowing The Depreciation On Research & Development Assets Which Related To The Closed Business Of Fast Food Division/Unit Of The Assessee-Company As Such Not Used During The Previous Year? (3) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The I.T.A.T. Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,77,887/- 2

C.I.T., Patiala vs. Jai Parkash

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Mahendra C Shah

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gandhinagar Bottling Pvt.Ltd

M/S.Mubarak Trading Company vs. Commr.of Income Tax

Appeal is dismissed

Manbhari Devi Goyal vs. Commissioner of It & Anr

C.I.T.Jalandhar vs. Shri Mangal Sain Hoshiarpur

Commissioner of Income Tax, Bilaspur vs. M/S Bukhari Enterprises, Bilaspur

Commissioner of Income Tax Ldh vs. Highway Cycle Inds Ltd

Bench: The Due Date As Defined In The First Proviso To Section 43B, The Amount Cannot Be Disallowed U/S 43B Even When The ‘Evidence’ For Payment Before The Due Date For Filing Of Return U/S 139(1) Was Not Furnished Along With The Return Of Income?”

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sumitraben J Thakkar

Amin Chand Payarelal vs. Inspecting Assti. Commissioner, Income Tax and Ors

Bench: Assessment Is Made Would Not Absolve Assessee From The Liability To Pay Penalty-Even If Assessee Deposits Interest For Late Filing, Penalty, Could Be Levied Under S.271 (/)(A). The Question Which Arose For Consideration In The Present Appeal Was D That When Return Has Been Filed Beyond The Extended Period For Filing Under Section 139(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & The Assessee Has Paid Interest For The Late Filing, Whether Penalty Under Section 271(1)(A) Of The Act Could Be Levied Thereon. E Dismissing The Appeal, The Court Held: Sub-Section (4) Of Section 139 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Provides For A Situation Where The Returns Are Not Filed By An Assessee Within The Time Allowed Or Within The Extended Period For Filing Such Returns. Merely Because Sub-Section (4) Of Section 139 Enable The Assessee To File His Return At Any Time Before The Assessment Is Made, It Does Not Mean That His Liability F To Pay Penalty Under Section 27L(L)(A) Is Erased. The Penalty Could Be Levied Under Section 27L(L)(A) Of The Act. The Impugned Judgment Of The Division Bench Of High Court That Mere Deposit Of Interest Would Not Absolve The Assessee From Its Liability To Pay The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(A) Of The Act Is Upheld. (735-A, G; 736-A-Bj G H Commissioner Of Income Tax, A.P. V. M. Chandra Sekhar, (1985) 151 Itr 433, Distinguished. Pradip Lamps Works V. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (2001) 249 Itr 797, Relied On. 730 '

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dhatu Sanskar Latd