2014 (2) TMI 19 - SUPREME COURT
Sasi Enterprises Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Willful and deliberate failure to file returns - Held that - Section 276CC applies to situations where an assessee has failed to file a return of income as required under Section 139 of the Act or in response to notices issued to the assessee under Section 142 or Section 148 of the Act - The proviso to Section 276CC gives some relief to genuine assesses who either file the returns belatedly but within the end of the assessment year or those who have paid substantial amounts of their tax dues by pre-paid taxes, from the rigor of the prosecution under Section 276CC of the Act The appellant has f ....... - .......
2013 (12) TMI 318 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Vijay Bharti Madhok Versus Union of India
Criminal proceedings - Failure to furnish returns of income - Held that - The case of the applicant is not with regard to evasion of tax, but it merely relates to the jurisdictional error in filing the returns and there are no proceedings pending against the Applicant by Income Tax Department either for evasion of tax or any other default as prescribed in the Income Tax Act, 1961, other than the instant proceedings under challenge under Section 276 CC of Income Tax Act, 1961 ....... - .......
2013 (5) TMI 128 - DELHI HIGH COURT
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus NILOFAR CURRIMBHOY
Failure to furnish the return - Offence U/s 276-CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - The accused/Assessee has not rendered any valid and cogent reasons for filing the Income Tax Return for the Assessment year, 1994-95 after the lapse of 7 months - Held that - Just because the respondent had applied for the compounding of the offence before the filing of the complaint against her in Court, as is was being claimed by her, and the same according to her had not been decided before the filing of the complaint it could not be said that the complaint was not maintainable, as was also the submission of th ....... - .......
2013 (6) TMI 284 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Anil Kumar Sinha Versus Union of India
Prosecution /s 276CC - immunity form prosecution or not - Settlement Commission, while deciding the case has granted immunities for penalty. - held that - In this case, the complaint has been filed under section 276CC of the Act which is related to non-filing of return, even though on different occasions, notices were given to the petitioners to file necessary return but in spite thereof, the petitioners gave no response which led to filing of the present case, whereas the issue before the Settlement Commission was with regard to different aspect of the matter, as the petitioners deposited the ....... - .......
2013 (7) TMI 770 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
VG. Paneerdas and Co. P. Ltd. Versus Secretary, Central Board of Direct Taxes
Compounding of offences u/s 276CC review petition - the petitioner contended that there is no bar for considering the request of the assessee for compounding the offence even if the assessee had been convicted - a criminal appeal has also been filed against the order of conviction and it is still pending Held that - The assessee should have made a written request for the compounding of the offence in the prescribed pro forma as provided under the guidelines - the petitioner should also have satisfied the other conditions contained in the guidelines for the compounding of the offence - the guid ....... - .......
2010 (7) TMI 197 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. INBAVALLI Versus INCOME-TAX OFFICER
Offences and prosecutions Complaints were filed against the assessee for not filing the income tax return before the statutory due date in accordance with section 139(1) of the Act and thereby rendering the assessee to prosecution under section 276CC of the Act. The assessee filed a petition seeking discharge but the petitions were dismissed. On revision petition contending that subsequently a notice was issued to the assessee under section 148 of the Act granting 30 day time to file the return, that once notice was given under section 148 of the Act, time for filing returns was extended and t ....... - .......
2010 (2) TMI 107 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus M. SUNDARAM
Criminal Liability under section 276CC Failure to furnish return of income The assessee ought to have filed his returns for the assessment year 1991-92 and 1992-93 on or before August 31, 1991, and August 31, 1992, respectively but returns were filed belatedly on August 31, 1994 and March 28, 1996 respectively, after issue of notices under section 142 and 148. held that since the assessee had not filed the returns in time, mere payment of interest/ penalty would not absolve his criminal liability. Hence the trial court committed an error in acquitting the assessee. The ....... - .......
2008 (11) TMI 358 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Union of India Versus Bhavecha Machinery
Offences and prosecution- The quintessence of the offence u/s 276CC of the Income Tax Act, lies in the willfulness of delay in filing return. In other words, it is not merely failure to file the return in time, which constitutes the offence. The failure to file the return in time must be proved by clear, cogent and reliable evidence to be willful and there should be no plausible doubt of its being willful. It must be intentional, deliberate, calculated and conscious with full evidence made by the courts below while recording an order of acquittal does not suffer from any illegality or manifest ....... - .......
2008 (7) TMI 523 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
ROSHAN LAL Versus SPECIAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AND ANOTHER
Offences and Prosecution- the income-tax returns on behalf of the Hindu undivided family were not submitted well within the lime for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82 and, therefore, the offence punishable under section 276CC of the Income-tax Act was committed. It was also the case of the complainant, i.e., the Income-tax Department that Ram Lal who was the karta of the Hindu undivided family and his son, accused No.2, Roshan Lal, were responsible for the commission of the aforesaid offence. held that- the Department had not alleged in the complaint that the Karta of the Hindu undivide ....... - .......
2008 (4) TMI 161 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
SMT. GOVINDA DEVI Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER
Petitioner won a lottery - prize money was paid to the petitioner in February, 1992 - petitioner in her return for the A.Y. 1992-93 disclosed the receipt of the prize money and also paid the tax due on it - Assessing Officer, on some misconception thought that as the petitioner has won the lottery in January, 1992, the receipt of the prize money would form part of the A.Y ....... - .......
2008 (1) TMI 316 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
UNION OF INDIA Versus DINESH
Appellant-Union of India being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitting the present respondent for offences punishable u/s 276CC & 277 appellant has submission that the learned court below committed factual error in acquitting the accused held that no case was made out by appellant to show that there was willful de ....... - .......
2006 (11) TMI 133 - DELHI HIGH COURT
SNP PUNJ, MAYA RANI PUNJ, NP PUNJ AND OTHERS Versus DEPUTY CIT
Prosecution for failure to file the return as required u/s139 (1) in time - petitioners were no more partners in the firm - it is not indicated as to how and in what manner the petitioners were in-charge of the affairs of the firm - it is accused No. 8(another partner) who was controlling the affairs of the firm and it was he who was corresponding with the income ....... - .......
2006 (11) TMI 185 - DELHI HIGH COURT
SUSHIL SURI AND SANJAY SURI Versus STATE AND OTHERS
Default in depositing TDS offence summoning order - held that a Managing Director was a principal officer of a company and that if he signs and verifies a return on behalf of the company which later turns out to be false, he would be liable there is not need to issue separate notice to Managing Director - prosecution could continue in respect of peti ....... - .......
2005 (11) TMI 67 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court
Rameshwar Prasad Sunderlal And Others. Versus Union of India.
....... - ...... eir conviction cannot be sustained in law. The prosecution is also unduly delayed. The learned appellate court has also not considered the vital aspects of the matter. In the result, this revision is allowed. The conviction and the sentence imposed under section 276CC of the Income-tax Act is set aside and the accused/applicants are acquitted of the charges aforesaid. The fine if deposited, be refunded to them. Their bail bonds stand discharged.
2004 (11) TMI 15 - SUPREME Court
Guru Nanak Enterprises And Others Versus Income-tax Officer, Distt. Circle Ii, Jaipur
HC dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the proceeding pending in the court of the Special Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur, initiated u/s 276CC read with section 278B- held that the prosecution is wholly unwarranted. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment and ....... - .......