2001 PLP 2381 (PTD)
CENTURY FLOUR MILLS LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2381 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 247 I T R 276 |
| Bench Members | S. P. Bharucha, U. C. Banerjee and N. Santosh Hegde, JJ |
| Parties | CENTURY FLOUR MILLS LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX |
| Primary Law | Income‑tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2381 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income‑tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2381 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 247 I T R 276 bench comprising: S. P. Bharucha, U. C. Banerjee and N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2381 (PTD) (CENTURY FLOUR MILLS LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. Ravindra Bhat, Advocate for Appellant.
- Ranbir Chandra, Ms. Laxmi Iyengar and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated February 25, 1997, of the Madras High Court in Tax Case Petition No.334 of 1996). ‑‑‑‑Reference‑‑‑Penalty‑‑‑Concealment of income‑‑‑Finding based on material on record that there had been concealment of income‑‑‑Finding of fact‑‑‑No question of law arose‑‑‑Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.256 & 271(1)(c). Where the High Court refused to call for a reference of the question, inter alia, whether the Tribunal rightly upheld the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: Held, affirming the decision of the High Court, that the Tribunal having arrived, at the finding of concealment of income on the basis of the material on record, no question of law arose, reference of which could be called for. Century Flour Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 234 ITR 768 (Mad.) affirmed.
Judgment & Decree
Century Flour Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 234 ITR 768 (Mad.) affirmed. S. Ravindra Bhat, Advocate for Appellant. Ranbir Chandra, Ms. Laxmi Iyengar and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates for Respondent. The High Court (see (1998) 234 ITR 768) declined to call for a reference of the following questions (page 768): (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the levy of penalty in respect of the sale consideration of the sale of the land is justified? facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the sale consideration is not Rs.8,16,550 as disclosed in the deed of sale, but is a sum of Rs.16,43,539 as estimated by the Assessing Officer? (3) Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the extra consideration alleged to have been received by the Managing Director should. also be attributed to the applicant‑company? (4) Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the extra consideration alleged to have been received by the Managing Director of the applicant‑company is also applicable for the purpose of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (5) Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the applicant company has concealed the particulars of the real consideration in respect of the sale of land and, consequently, the income is liable for penalty?" It did so on the basis that they were questions of fact. We have perused the order of the High Court and heard learned counsel and are in no doubt that the High Court was right. The Appellate Tribunal having arrived at the finding of concealment of income on the basis of the. material on record, no question of law arose, reference of which could be called for. The civil appeal is dismissed with costs. M.B.A./988/FC Appeal dismissed.