MCTM Corpn. (P) Ltd. (1996)2 SCC 471, JK Industries Ltd. v. Chief Inspector of Factors & Boilers

4 SCC 98Reported decision1999#4860 most cited

What is MCTM Corpn. (P) Ltd. (1996)2 SCC 471, JK Industries Ltd. v. Chief Inspector of Factors & Boilers authority for?

A penalty imposed for tax delinquency is a civil obligation, differing from criminal penalties or punishments for violations of law.

24

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

MCTM Corpn. (P) Ltd. · JK Industries Ltd. · penalty for tax delinquency · civil obligation · remedial and coercive · criminal penalty · fine · forfeiture

Issues it is cited on

section 75section 10bainterest on outstanding receivablesinitial assessment yeartransfer pricing ordersection 80hsection 80hhcsection 10btested partysection 80hheligible businesssection 80ib

Judgments citing MCTM Corpn. (P) Ltd. (1996)2 SCC 471, JK Industries Ltd. v. Chief Inspector of Factors & Boilers

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)

…6 SCC 329, was overruled and after referring to series of decisions in Director of Enforcement 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 violat…

CIT vs. Fortis Financial Service

ITA/244/2011HC Delhi05 Jul 2012

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 13

…7) 6 SCC 329, was overruled and after referring to series of decisions in Director of Enforcement 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 o…

CIT vs. Fortis Financial Service

ITA - 243 / 2011HC Delhi05 Jul 2012
Section 13

…7) 6 SCC 329, was overruled and after referring to series of decisions in Director of Enforcement 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 o…

Commissioner of Income Tax-IV

ITA/243/2011HC Delhi05 Jul 2012
Section 13

…7) 6 SCC 329, was overruled and after referring to series of decisions in Director of Enforcement 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 o…