2012 (9) TMI 291 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
M/s PREM TAILOR AND ANOTHER Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER
Concealment of income - Penalty and demand notices issued accordingly - Criminal prosecution against assessee - Held that:- Considering date of filing of the return, date of processing the return and date of issuance of the said notice, it is evident ......
2012 (2) TMI 216 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Versus General Sales Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Evasion of income tax abnormal dealings search conducted - donations collected in the names of approved trusts and institutions without authority and scrupulously aiding the donors in siphoning off the donated money back to them in dubious ways, ......
2011 (12) TMI 68 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
AXIS Bank Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana and another
Priority in recovering dues - Secured Creditors or Crown debt - Held That:- secured creditor has preference over the dues of the Income Tax Department in respect of the secured assets.
2011 (5) TMI 156 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Income-tax Officer, Jind Versus Mangat Ram Norata Ram Narwana
Prosecution u/s 276C(1), 277 and 278 - Posecution had led evidence to prove that revised return was filed by the firm under the name of accused Hem Raj and on that basis assessment was made by the assessing authority - There is further evidence to sh ......
2010 (4) TMI 652 - Madras High Court
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Versus. NK. Mohamed Ali
Offences and prosecution false verification Willful attempt to evade tax criminal proceedings Petition discharged discharge petition filed on ground penalty cancelled by Tribunal, making prosecution groundless cancellation of penalty by T ......
2009 (5) TMI 85 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
UNION Of INDIA Versus BHUPENDRA SINGH
Power of Appellate court to reverse the order of acquittal failure to furnish return - offence punishable under sections 276 and 278 - The reasons given by the trial court for acquitting the respondent appears to be reasonable and are based on evid ......
2009 (1) TMI 205 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
SMT. MALTI DEVI Versus TAX RECOVERY OFFICER AND ANOTHER
Recovery of Tax Attachment and sale of property Petition purchased property from father in laws who was defaulter and against whom recovery proceedings were initiated - the Commissioner of Income-tax has referred sub-rule (6) of rule 11 of Part I ......
2008 (2) TMI 324 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Income Tax Officer, Jind Versus M/s Garg Construction Company
Non-deduction of tax at source on the payments made to the subcontractors violation of section 194(C)(2) - A perusal of assessment order proves that TDS had been deducted and income of sub-contractors had been counted as income of the Partnership ......
2007 (10) TMI 275 - PATNA HIGH COURT
YOGENDRA PRASAD AND OTHERS Versus STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS
Application for quashing the entire proceeding against the petitioners u/s 276 and 277 tribunal set aside original assessment by directing fresh assessment assessee paid tax as per fresh assessment - absence of any mala fide intention on the part ......
2007 (9) TMI 206 - GUJRAT HIGH COURT
HT POWER STRUCTURE P. LTD AND OTHERS Versus RP SHARMA AND ANOTHER
Tribunal had allowed assessees appeal and quashed penalty imposed for (concealment of income) but proceedings were pending While the appeal was pending before tribunal, the dept. initiated criminal proceedings against petitioners held that once ......
2007 (6) TMI 173 - MADRAS High Court
AB Shanthi Alias Venniradai Nirmala Versus Assistant Director of Inspection (Investigation).
........... he court below can be sustained. The accused was convicted by the court below to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 4,65,000 even after the amendment and after the omission of section 276DD of the Act, as per the penal provision inducted thereafter under section 271D of the Act, the Income-tax Commissioner can levy only penalty and the person who violates the provisions of section 269SS of the Act, cannot be sentenced to any imprisonment. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that the penalty levied by the courts below by way of fine should sustain and only the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment alone is to be set aside in lieu of march of law on this subject. In fine, the revision is allowed in part and the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment on the accused passed in E. O. C. C. No. 207/1986 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate EO-II, Egmore, Chennai, is set aside while confirming the fine of Rs. 4,65,000.
2007 (5) TMI 149 - HIGH COURT, DELHI
RAKESH KALIA Versus INCOME-TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS
Offences and prosecution - Petitioner contended that once penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are set aside, no prosecution for the same could be launched on the ground of addition of income - Tribunal quashed the prosecution ......
2007 (2) TMI 189 - PATNA High Court
Medivet And Others Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax And Another.
........... reached by the criminal court. It appears from the impugned order of cognizance that the learned judge after being satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out, took cognizance under sections 276C, 277, 278 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The impugned order of cognizance indicates application of judicial mind and satisfaction of the learned judge. In the facts and circumstances of the case, at present this court finds no error in the order of cognizance. The continuation of criminal proceeding therefore, at this stage cannot be accepted to be an abuse of process of the court. This application is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioners will be at liberty to file an application before the court below for stay of the proceeding and if such application is filed then the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law in the light of the decision of the apex court given in the case of CIT v. Bhupen Champak Lal Dalal 2001 248 ITR 830(SC) 2001 3 SCC 459.
2007 (1) TMI 131 - DELHI High Court
Income-Tax Officer Versus Rajan And Company And Others (No. 2).
........... n the merits. This being the position, I need not go into the question as to whether a prosecution under section 276C of the said Act can be continued in a case where the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the said Act have been terminated merely on the ground of some technicality and not on the merits. In this context, Mr. Jolly had also submitted that the ratio in Ram Commercial 2000 246 ITR 568 (Delhi) had been doubted by a subsequent Division Bench of this court and the question has now been referred to a Full Bench. However, in view of the conclusion arrived at above that the penalty was deleted not just on a technicality but on the merits, I need not go into this issue. In so far as the present case is concerned, it is fully covered by the decision in K. C. Builders 2004 265 ITR 562 (SC) and Bandhu Machinery. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge does not require any interference. This revision petition is dismissed.
2006 (12) TMI 99 - MADRAS High Court
Selvi J. Jayalalithaa Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Sasi Enterprises Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, VK. Sasikala Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax.
........... s contemplated. As long as there is no provision for a mandatory notice before prosecution, I am unable to uphold the contention that the principles of natural justice have been violated. The petitioner will have sufficient opportunity to put forth his defence before the trial magistrate and the principles of natural justice are thus abundantly safeguarded.... However, the criminal court is bound to give due regard to the result of any proceeding under the Income-tax Act, having a bearing on the question in issue and, in an appropriate case, may drop the proceeding in the light of an order passed under the Act. It does not mean that the result of a proceeding under the Act would be binding on the criminal court, for the criminal court has to independently judge the case on the evidence placed before it. For all the reasons stated above, the criminal revisions are dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, M. P. Nos. 1, 2, 2 and 2 of 2006 are closed.