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

The appeal is allowed

u/s. 271(1)(C) was not exigible in the present case?" 6. The High Court compared the returns filed by the appellant under the Income Tax Act and the Wealth Tax Act and arrived at the following decision : "The principal is responsible for all the act done by the agent. That apart, in the case on hand there

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

Appeals stand allowed as mentioned hereinabove but with

27. In the aforesaid case, the expression “income” in the statute appearing in Section 2 (24) of the Act has been clarified to mean that it is an inclusive definition and includes losses, that is, negative profit. This has been held so on the strength of earlier judgments of this Court C.As. @ SLP (C) No. 5241 of 2007 etc…. (contd

K. KRISHNAMURTHY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is disposed of with

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA

27,65,580/- and filed returns showing income of Rs.4,78,02,616/-. The principal argument is that nothing was found during the course of search; assessee had voluntarily filed return of income more than what he had admitted before the DDIT. According to him, machinery Section has thus failed and therefore, penalty cannot be imposed. 11. Sub-section

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

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

27 Commission and has made “full and true disclosure of his income”, the Settlement Commission may grant immunity from prosecution and penalty. It is the case of the Revenue that Section 245H (1) cannot be read in isolation as Section 245C is embedded in 245H (1), and hence, both the Sections must be read harmoniously. That when so read

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

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

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

27 of 59 15. While interpreting a provision the court only interprets the law and cannot legislate it. If a provision of law is misused and subjected to the abuse of process of law, it is for the legislature to amend, modify or repeal it, if deemed necessary. (See Rishabh Agro Industries Ltd. v. P.N.B. Capital Services

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

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

27-29, 31, 34, 36 of 2002 and 2-10 of 2003; 24th March, 2005 in Customs Application Nos.17-18 of 2003; 30th March, 2005 in Customs Application Nos.26 and 29 of 2003; 16th March, 2005 in Customs Application Nos. 11-14 of 2003; 6th April, 2005 in Customs Application Nos. 31-33 and 35 of 2003 and 23rd March