1996) 6 SCC 665, R.S. Joshi vs. Ajit Mills Ltd. (1977) 4 SCC 98, Gujarat Travancore Agency v. CIT

11 SCC 641Reported decision2004#12052 most cited
8

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2024.

Judgments citing 1996) 6 SCC 665, R.S. Joshi vs. Ajit Mills Ltd. (1977) 4 SCC 98, Gujarat Travancore Agency v. CIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. RASHTROTTHANA PARISHAT, BENGALURU

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

ITA 1666/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017=18

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra CIT-D.RFor Respondent: Sri Prakash Shridhar Hegde, CA
Section 11Section 11(6)Section 250Section 270ASection 274

…with the Dcit(E), Circle-1, Bengaluru Page 18 of 24 statute has occurred. In our opinion, there is nothing in section 271(1)(a) which requires that mens rea must be proved before penalty can be levied under that provision. (e) Swedish Match AB v. SEBI [2004] 11 SCC 641 (SCC p. 671, para 113) "The provisions of section 15H of the Act mandate that a penalty of rupees twenty-five crores may be imposed. The Board does not have any discretion in the matter and, thus, the adjudication proceeding is a mere formality. Imposition of penalty upon the appellant would, thus, be a forgone conclusion. Only in the criminal pro…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. GE MONEY FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.

ITA/224/2017HC Delhi10 Apr 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 10A(2)(c)

…No. 1 of 2012, (2012) 10 SCC 1. (xi) Centre for Public Interest Litigation Vs. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC 1. (xii) R. Muthukumar Vs. TANGEDCO, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 151. (xiii) Doiwala Sehkari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd. Vs. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 11 SCC 641. (xiv) B. Rudragouda Vs. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7736. (xv) A.P. Christain Medical Educational Society Vs. Govt. of A.P., (1986) 2 SCC 667. (xvi) Centre for Public Interest Litigation Vs. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC 1. (xvii) Dhanraj Vs. Vikram Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 724. (xviii) Hero Motocorp Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI)…

The Commissioner of Income Tax - II vs. M/s. Kumar Raja Associates

In the result, all the Tax Revision

ITTA/191/2008HC Telangana23 Mar 2016

Bench: Floor, Opp.Gurudware Bus Stop, Th Stat, 0/O.Meghana Towers, 4 Visakhapatnam. ... Petitioner & M/S.Pulp-N-Pack [P] Limited, Tadimalla ... Respondent : Sri T.C.D.Sekhar, Gp For Commercial Tax Counsel For The Respondent : Sri S Suribabu, Representing On Behalf Of Sri S R R Viswanath Counsel For The Petitioner

For Respondent: Sri T.C.D.Sekhar, GP for Commercial Tax
Section 22

…meaningful and purposeful, {d) an Explanation cannot in any way interfere with or change the enactment or any part thereof but where some gap is left which is relevant for the purpose of the Explanation, in order to suppress the mischief and advance 30 (2004) 11 SCC 641 43 RNT, J & HN, J TREVC. No. 83 of 2008 & batch the object of the Act it can help or assist the court in interpreting the true purport and intendment of the enactment, and (e) it cannot, however, take away a statutory right with which any person under a statute has been clothed or set at naught the working of an Act by becoming an hindrance in t…

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD

ITA/586/2014HC Delhi11 Sept 2014
Section 10Section 13Section 2Section 2(7)Section 8(2)

…t vs. MCTM Corpn. (P) Ltd. (1996)2 SCC 471, JK Industries Ltd. vs. Chief Inspector of Factors & Boilers, (1996) 6 SCC 665, R.S. Joshi vs. Ajit Mills Ltd. (1977) 4 SCC 98, Gujarat Travancore Agency vs. CIT (1989) 3 SCC 52, Swedish Match AB vs. SEBI (2004) 11 SCC 641, the following legal principle: ―A penalty imposed for a tax delinquency is a civil obligation, remedial and coercive in its nature, and is far different from the penalty for a crime or a fine or forfeiture provided as punishment for the violation of criminal or penal laws.‖ In Corpus Juris Secundrum, Vol. 85 at p. 580, para 1023, h…

CIT vs. FORTIS FINANCIAL SERVICE

ITA/244/2011HC Delhi05 Jul 2012

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 13

…ent vs. MCTM Corpn. (P) Ltd. (1996)2 SCC 471, JK Industries Ltd. vs. Chief Inspector of Factors & Boilers, (1996) 6 SCC 665, R.S. Joshi vs. Ajit Mills Ltd. (1977) 4 SCC 98, Gujarat Travancore Agency vs. CIT (1989) 3 SCC 52, Swedish Match AB vs. SEBI (2004) 11 SCC 641, the following legal principle: “A penalty imposed for a tax delinquency is a civil obligation, remedial and coercive in its nature, and is far different from the penalty for a crime or a fine or forfeiture provided as punishment for the violation of criminal or penal laws.” ITA 243/2011…

CIT vs. FORTIS FINANCIAL SERVICE

ITA - 243 / 2011HC Delhi05 Jul 2012
Section 13

…ent vs. MCTM Corpn. (P) Ltd. (1996)2 SCC 471, JK Industries Ltd. vs. Chief Inspector of Factors & Boilers, (1996) 6 SCC 665, R.S. Joshi vs. Ajit Mills Ltd. (1977) 4 SCC 98, Gujarat Travancore Agency vs. CIT (1989) 3 SCC 52, Swedish Match AB vs. SEBI (2004) 11 SCC 641, the following legal principle: “A penalty imposed for a tax delinquency is a civil obligation, remedial and coercive in its nature, and is far different from the penalty for a crime or a fine or forfeiture provided as punishment for the violation of criminal or penal laws.” 2012:DHC:4033-DB ITA 243/2011…

Commissioner of Income Tax-IV

ITA/243/2011HC Delhi05 Jul 2012
Section 13

…ent vs. MCTM Corpn. (P) Ltd. (1996)2 SCC 471, JK Industries Ltd. vs. Chief Inspector of Factors & Boilers, (1996) 6 SCC 665, R.S. Joshi vs. Ajit Mills Ltd. (1977) 4 SCC 98, Gujarat Travancore Agency vs. CIT (1989) 3 SCC 52, Swedish Match AB vs. SEBI (2004) 11 SCC 641, the following legal principle: “A penalty imposed for a tax delinquency is a civil obligation, remedial and coercive in its nature, and is far different from the penalty for a crime or a fine or forfeiture provided as punishment for the violation of criminal or penal laws.” 2012:DHC:4033-DB ITA 243/2011…

DILIP N. SHROFF vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI &ANR

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-002746-002746 - 2007Supreme Court18 May 2007
For Respondent: Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai & Anr

…with which any person under a statute has been clothed or set at naught the working of an Act by becoming an hindrance in the interpretation of the same."" [See also Swedish Match AB and Another v. Securities & Exchange Board of India and Another, (2004) 11 SCC 641] 42. If the ingredients contained in the main provisions as also the explanation appended thereto are to be given effect to, despite deletion of the word ’deliberate’, it may not be of much significance. 43. The expression "conceal" is of great importance. According to Law Lexicon, the word "conceal" means: "to hide or keep secret.…

1996) 6 SCC 665, R.S. Joshi vs. Ajit Mills Ltd. (1977) 4 SCC 98, Gujarat Travancore Agency v. CIT (11 SCC 641) — Cited in 8 Judgments | BharatTax