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

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

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

c) of section 269UA.] (1A) A person shall not be proceeded against for an offence under section 276C or section 277 in relation to the assessment for an assessment year in respect of which the penalty imposed or imposable on him under [section 270A or] clause (iii) of sub- section (1) of section 271 has been reduced or waived

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

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 (1

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

C) No. 14991 of 2006 is condoned and Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this batch of appeals is to the orders passed by the High Court of Bombay dated 3rd July, 2003 in Customs Application Nos. 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