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

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(1)(C) exceeding Rs.50,000/- is imposed and confirmed by the ITAT (if any second appeal has been filed) shall be processed for filing prosecution complaint. The case for prosecution under this section shall be processed by the A.O. preferably within 60 days of receipt of the ITAT’s order, if any.” The intent of the above scheme

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

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 by the Assessing Officer for AY 1997-98 in respect of non disclosure of lease rental as income. The penalty order is annulled considering that the non disclosure was on account of RBI guidelines and the 32 subsequent disclosure

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

B of First Schedule namely; “additional”, “additional Income Tax”, “charge on the total income”, “profits liable to tax” and lastly, “dividends payable out of such profits”, whereas, in Gold Coin's case, the question arose whether word “income” includes loss for the purpose of imposition of penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) and if Assessee incurs loss in any particular

K. KRISHNAMURTHY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is disposed of with

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA

271-AAA of the Act reads as follows: “The assessing Officer may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, direct that, in a case where search has been initiated under section 132 on or after the 1st day of June, 2007 [but before the 1st day of July, 2012], the assessee shall

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

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