JT.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,SURAT vs. SAHELI LEASING & INDUSTRIES LTD

Appeals stand allowed as mentioned hereinabove but with

142, would still hold the field and applies fully to the facts of the said case. 32. Much emphasis has been laid on the following observations in Elphinstone (supra) reproduced hereinbelow : C.As. @ SLP (C) No. 5241 of 2007 etc…. (contd.) 13 “There is no doubt that if the words of a taxing statute fail, then so much

K. KRISHNAMURTHY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is disposed of with

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA

142(1) of the Act 1961 was issued to the Appellant calling for return of income for Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2011-2012. The Appellant filed his return of income on 05th November, 2012. The Appellant returned a total income of Special Leave Petition (C)No.943 of 2023 Page 3 of 18 Rs.4,77,11,330/- (Rupees Four Crores Seventy Seven

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 2 vs. M/S MAHAGUN REALTORS (P) LTD

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are attracted on this score. (Addition of Rs. 6,05,71,018/-)” 40. The facts of the present case are distinctive, as evident from the following sequence: 1. The original return of MRPL was filed under Section 139(1) on 30.06.2006. 2. The order of amalgamation is dated 11.05.2007 – but made effective from