COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,NEW DELHI vs. M/S ELI LILLY & COMPANY (INDIA) P.LTD

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FB, section 271G, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA, or sub-section (1) of section 272BB or sub-section

SASI ENTERPRISES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Egmore), Chennai, For The Willful & Deliberate Failure To File Returns For The Assessment Years 1991-92, 1992-93 & Hence Committing Offences Punishable Under Section 276 Cc Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”). Complaints Were Filed On 21.8.1997 After Getting The Sanction From The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Ii, Chennai Under Section 279(1) Of The Income Tax Act. Appellants Filed Two Discharge Petitions Under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C., Which Were Dismissed By The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vide Order Dated 14.6.2006. Appellants Preferred Crl. R.C. Nos.781 To 786 Of 2006 Before The High Court Of Madras Which Were Dismissed By The High Court Vide Its Common Order Dated 2.12.2006, Which Are The Subject Matters Of These Appeals.

C) Nos.3655- 3658 of 2005 which were disposed of by this Court directing the trial court to dispose of the petition for discharge within a period of two months by its order dated 03.03.2006. Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate rejected the petitions vide its order dated 14.06.2006. Though the High Court affirmed the said order vide its judgment dated 02.12.2006, these

PRAKASH NATH KHANNA vs. COMMNR OF INCOME TAX

271(1)(a) of the Act, could not further be prosecuted for the same defaults. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the High Court was justified in its conclusions in dismissing the writ petitions. The decision in Kullu Valley’s case (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case and in fact

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

capital gain is totally exempt, entire transaction used to escape the tax net. Thus to plug this loop hole in the statute, Section 115QA is introduced to provide that where shares are bought back at a price higher than the price at which those shares were issued then, balance amount will be treated as distribution of income to shareholder

SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM THR. FINANCE DIRECTOR MR. YOSHIHISA MIZUNO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III N.D

The appeals are hereby disposed of in terms of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated by the assessing officer against the assessee. In the assessment order, assessing officer made several disallowances which are not the subject matter of the appeal. 11.4. Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A), Chennai. During the appellate proceedings, assessee raised additional grounds of appeal which according to it were ignored

SRI T. ASHOK PAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

Section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act may not be attracted. (2) The revised return having been accepted by the Department and the penalty having not been imposed with reference to the original return filed by assessee, he cannot be considered to be guilty of concealment of income. (3) The fault, if any, was with his tax counsel

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

1. GRANT OF LICENSE: This EULA grants you the following rights: a. Systems Software - You may install and use one copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on a single computer, including a workstation, terminal, or other digital electronic device (“COMPUTER”). You may permit a maximum of five (5) COMPUTERS to connect to the single COMPUTER running the SOFTWARE PRODUCT solely

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR vs. PRAKASH CHAND LUNIA (D) THR LRS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

271 (i) (c) of the Act came to be confirmed by both the CIT (A) and the ITAT. Accordingly, the assessee filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Act against the Penalty order, before the High Court. The High Court while deciding both the cases together, qua the first question, decided in favour of the Revenue and the rental

KERALA STATE BEVERAGES MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING CORPORATION LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)

Accordingly, the civil appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

capital is held by the en­ tity referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) (whether singly or taken together); (iv)  a company or corporation in which the State Gov­ ernment has the right to appoint the majority of the   directors   or   to   control   the   management   or policy decisions, directly or indirectly, including by   virtue   of   its   shareholding   or   management

MEENAKSHI MILLS, MADURAI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,MADRAS

In the result, the appeals fail, and are dismissed with

271, 720 meaning of those observations Should be clarified, lest error and misconception should embarrass and fog the administration of law. The position that emerges on the authorities may thus be summed up: (1)When the point -for determination is a pure question of law such as construction of a statute or document of title, the decision of the Tribunal

MANSAROVAR COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

1 (SC); viii)A.M.M. Firm v. Reserve Bank of India, 1982 SCC OnLine Mad. 187 (Madras High Court Judgment); ix) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bank of China, 1985 SCC OnLine Cal. 24 (Calcutta High Court Judgment); and x) Universal Cargo Carriers Inc. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1990 SCC OnLine Cal. 385 (Calcutta High Court Judgment) 4.3 Relying upon

SAHARANPUR ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD. ETC. ETC. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ETC.ETC

c) of proviso to S. 10(2) (vi). Explanation 6 offers no difficulty as the relationship as "parent" and "subsidiary" between the companies involved in the transfer for the purposes of this clause has to be determined as at the time of the transfer 124 of the asset and will not be a wobbling or fluctuating one. [138G-H, 139A

KISHANCHAND LUNIDASINGH BAJAJ vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MYSORE

gains referred to in sub-section (1) of section 4, computed in the manner laid down in this Act". Section 16, insofar as it is relevant, provides "(1) In computing the, total income of an assessee- (a) any sums exempted under the first proviso to, subsection (1) of section 7, the second and third provisos to section 8, sub- sections