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

The appeal is allowed

Section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act may not be attracted. (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

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

Appeals stand allowed as mentioned hereinabove but with

u/s 271 (1) (c) can still be imposed on him. This has been categorically answered in Gold Coin (supra) in favour of Revenue and against the Assessee. (iv) The object of imposing penalty is different than that of determining Assessee's liability to pay tax or additional tax under any charging section

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

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

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

sections of IPC, relating to the matters covered in the present order. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied

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

Section 276C(1) of IT Act. The relevant clause of the said circular is reproduced as under: - “(iii) Offences u/s 276C(1): Wilful attempt to evade taxes All cases where penalty u/s 271(1)(C) exceeding

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

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX-XVIII,DELHI vs. BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Vide Order Dated 31.03.2006 Entered The Following Findings: “11..We Have Carefully Considered The Rival Submissions. In The Instant Case We Are Not Dealing With Collection Of Tax U/S 201(1) Or Compensatory Interest U/S 201(1A). The Case Of The Assessee Is That These Amounts Have Already Been Paid So As To End Dispute With Revenue. In The Present Appeals We Are Concerned With Levy Of 1

Section 271-C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Against the order of Assessing Officer, the respondent took up the matter in appeal and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the levy of penalty. 2. The matter was pursued by the Revenue before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 31.03.2006 entered

ASSTT.COMMR.OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HOTEL BLUE MOON

u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be deleted or set aside.” 4) The High Court, disagreeing with the Tribunal, held, that the provisions of Section 142 and sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 143 will have mandatory application in a case where the assessing officer in repudiation of return filed in response to a notice issued

M/S TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid observations

Bench: The Assessing Officer. What The High Court Has Done Is To Require The Assessing Officer To Pass A -2-

penalty proceedings initiated in this case u/s 271 C read with Section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are hereby

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

271 has been reduced or waived by an order under section 273A. SLP (C) NO. 20519 of 2024 Page 37 of 59 (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. (3) Where any proceeding

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

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