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

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

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

D G M E N T J.K. MAHESHWARI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court1 in Crl. OP. No. 28763 of 2018 for quashing of the proceedings of EOC No. 242 of 2018 initiated by the Revenue, before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II), Egmore, Chennai, for the offence under Section 276C(1

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

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

The appeal is allowed

D G M E N T CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2747 OF 2007 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.1194 of 2006) S.B. Sinha, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The assessee is in appeal before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment dated 29.9.2005, passed by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in ITRC No.492 of 1998 whereby

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

Appeals stand allowed as mentioned hereinabove but with

d) Appropriate care should be taken not to load it with all legal knowledge on the subject as citation of too many judgments creates more confusion rather than clarity. The foremost requirement is that leading judgments should be mentioned and the evolution that has taken place ever since the same were pronounced and thereafter, latest judgment, in which all previous

K. KRISHNAMURTHY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is disposed of with

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA

D G M E N T MANMOHAN.J 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal has been filed challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 02nd August, 2022 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in I.T.A. No. 125 of 2017 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the Appellant under Section 260A of the Income

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

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

D G M E N T KURIAN, J. 1. The short issue pertains to the assessment of penalty under 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

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

D G M E N T S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. 1. Special leave to appeal granted. With consent of counsels, this appeal was heard finally. This appeal arises from an order1 of the Delhi High Court rejecting the appeal, by the present appellant (hereafter “the revenue”) and affirming the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) which quashed

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

d) of the Act. However, the importers were given an option to redeem the confiscated goods on payment of redemption fine, which was 3 fixed, adopting the margin of profit as the basis, under Section 125 of the Act; and penalty levied under Section 112(a) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved, the importers approached the Tribunal in appeal. The Tribunal