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

The appeal is allowed

5. A reference was made to the High Court at the instance of the revenue in respect of the following question : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that penalty u/s. 271(1)(C) was not exigible in the present case?" 6. The High Court compared the returns filed

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

Appeals stand allowed as mentioned hereinabove but with

5 10. However, the Division Bench in its wisdom thought it fit to dispose of the appeal as under:- “Admitted facts are that the appellant has filed return showing loss and the income is also assessed as “NIL income”. When the return was shown as loss as well as assessment of income is also NIL, no penalty under Section 271

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

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

271 or under section 272A or an order passed by him under section 154 amending his order under section 263 or an order passed by a Chief Commissioner or a Director General or a Director under section 272A.” An appeal before the High Court would lie on a substantial question of law as provided for under Section 260A

K. KRISHNAMURTHY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is disposed of with

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA

5 of 18 9. On the same day, another order imposing penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act 1961 was passed in respect of AY 2010-2011. Penalty at the rate of 10% (Ten per cent) was imposed on the entire returned income i.e. Rs.4,78,02,616/- (Rupees Four Crores Seventy Eight Lakhs Two Thousand Six Hundred Sixteen Only

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

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

21 Commission did not apply its mind to the issue as to, whether, the appellant-assessee had wilfully evaded tax, before proceeding to exercise its power under Section 245H of the Act. Hence, the matter was rightly remanded to the Commission to determine the issue as to grant of immunity to the assessee from levy of penalty and prosecution

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

5 the plea for immunity from prosecution due to pendency of quash petition before the High Court. It is urged that the order of the Settlement Commission is conclusive in terms of Section 245-I7, with respect to the matters specified therein. 7. It is further urged that the guidelines dated 24.04.2008 issued by Ministry of Finance, Government of India

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

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

5,54,20,982 6,41,96,022 Mahagun India P. Ltd. 2004-05 -do- 2005-06 1,79,63,669 2,08,07,939 -do- 2006-07 13,33,88,185 15,44,27,160 -do- 2007-08 2,09,41,931 2,42,57,786 -do- 2008-09 35,58,411 41,21

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

21. The term of imprisonment is higher when the amount of tax which would have been evaded but for the discovery of the failure to furnish the return exceeds one hundred thousand rupees. If the plea of the appellants is accepted, it would mean that in a given case where there is infraction and where a return has not been