GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

u/s 46A in the hands of shareholders. However, taking the benefit of Article 13 of India-Mauritius DTAA, which provides for capital gain arising on transfer of shares of Mauritius resident taxable in that country and under Mauritius tax laws capital gain is totally exempt, entire transaction used to escape the tax net. Thus to plug this loop hole

VINUBHAI MOHANLAL DOBARIA vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

15% reckoned from the day immediately following the specified date notwithstanding the fact that the Assessing Officer has extended the date for furnishing of return. SLP (C) NO. 20519 of 2024 Page 33 of 59 39. Accepting the contention of the respondents would mean that the commission of an offence under Section 276CC is made contingent upon the filing

K. KRISHNAMURTHY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is disposed of with

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA

u/s. 271AAA of the Act”. Special Leave Petition (C)No.943 of 2023 Page 6 of 18 12. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) vide order dated 17th October, 2016 rejected the Appellant’s appeal against the order dated 04th March, 2013 again on the ground of non-compliance with Section 271AAA(2) of the Act 1961. 13. The Appellant preferred

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,SIMLA vs. M/S GREEN WORLD CORPORATION

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for furnishing of in-accurate particulars of income assessed. The Assessing Officer is directed to calculate the tax and interest on this income and issue Demand Notice and Challan to the assessee firm. 6 17. Similar conditions i.e. non fulfillment of the prerequisite conditions for deduction u/s 80IA/IB and excessive declared

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

15,44,27,160 -do- 2007-08 2,09,41,931 2,42,57,786 -do- 2008-09 35,58,411 41,21,842 -do- 2009-10 12,60,57,575 14,60,16,941 Total 42,98,06,439 49,78,59,943 30 8.3 Before parting with this issue it is considered necessary to pin point that assessee

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

Appeals stand allowed as mentioned hereinabove but with

2 decisions which is not of much significance). (ii) The question that fell for consideration in Gold Coin (supra) was what would be the true interpretation of Section 271 (1) (c) in the context of amendments made therein whereas, the question in Elphinstone (supra) was in relation to chargeability C.As. @ SLP (C) No. 5241 of 2007 etc…. (contd.) 15

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

The appeal is allowed

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 and even the said tax counsel viz. the Syndicate Bank, cannot be said

VIJAY KRISHNASWAMI @ KRISHNASWAMI VIJAYAKUMAR vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION)

Bench: The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.Ii), Egmore, Chennai, For The Offence Under Section 276C(1)2 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (In Short “It Act”) For Assessment Year 2017- 1 High Court Of Judicature At Madras. 2 Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax, Etc. 1 Digitally Signed By Gulshan Kumar Arora Date: 2025.08.28 20:56:48 Ist Reason: Signature Not Verified

271 has been reduced or waived by an order under section 273A.] (2) Any offence under this Chapter may, either before or after the institution of proceedings, be compounded by the [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner] or a [Principal Director General or Director General]. 12 (3) Where any proceeding has been taken against any person under sub-section

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

15 examine the application by lifting the veil to see as to whether there has been an intention to evade tax and then arrive at a conclusion and in the absence of such an exercise being undertaken by the Commission, the intention behind Section 245H (1) would become otiose. iii. The Division Bench noted that as per the provision

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) vs. STONEMAN MARBLE INDUSTRIES

u/s. 112[a] from Rs. 29,40,000/- to Rs. 7,50,000/- in Appeal No. C/1030/01-Mum and in reducing the redemption fine from Rs. 42,84,000/- to Rs. 7,00,000/- and penalty from Rs. 4,00,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/- in Appeal No. C/1042/201-Mum by following its earlier orders in the case of Stonemann Marble