Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1988 1988 (10) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 181 to 182 of 182 Records

• 1988 (10) TMI 2
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Quashing of criminal proceedings under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
  2. Application of Explanation 2 to section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  3. Immunity from prosecution under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  4. Prosecution under section 278 of the Income-tax Act and section 120B read with section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Quashing of Criminal Proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
  The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 637 of 1985 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Economic Offences), Egmore, Madras. The prosecution was initiated by the Income-tax Officer against the petitioner and three others for offenses under section 120B read with section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sections 276C, 277, and 278 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner was accused of receiving Rs. 1,65,975 as on-money, which was not disclosed in the income-tax return.
  
  2. Application of Explanation 2 to Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
  The petitioner argued that Explanation 2 to section 273A of the Act provided complete immunity from prosecution. The court noted that Explanation 2, inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984, and deleted by the Finance Act, 1985, was in force at the time of the search and seizure. The Explanation allowed for deemed voluntary and good faith disclosure if made within fifteen days of seizure. The petitioner had made such a disclosure within the stipulated period.
  
  3. Immunity from Prosecution under Sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
  The court examined whether the petitioner would be immune from prosecution under sections 276C and 277. Section 273A allows the Commissioner to reduce or waive penalties if a full and true disclosure is made voluntarily and in good faith before detection by the Assessing Officer. Section 279(lA) states that a person shall not be prosecuted for offenses under sections 276C or 277 if the penalty is reduced or waived under section 273A. The court noted that the Commissioner had not passed any order under section 273A regarding the waiver or reduction of penalty for the petitioner. However, given the circumstances and the petitioner's timely disclosure, the court deemed that an order under section 273A ought to have been passed, granting the petitioner immunity from prosecution under sections 276C and 277.
  
  4. Prosecution under Section 278 of the Income-tax Act and Section 120B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code:
  The petitioner was also prosecuted for offenses under section 278 of the Income-tax Act and section 120B read with section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The court clarified that the immunity provided under section 279(lA) of the Act did not extend to these offenses. Therefore, the proceedings for these charges would not be quashed.
  
  Conclusion:
  The application to quash the proceedings was allowed in part. The court quashed the proceedings in respect of the offenses under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act for the petitioner. However, the prosecution for offenses under section 278 of the Income-tax Act and section 120B read with section 420 of the Indian Penal Code would continue.

  ---

• 1988 (10) TMI 1
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Legality of charging interest under section 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  2. Interpretation of "financial year" under section 215 in relation to the extended time for payment of advance tax under section 212(3A).
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Legality of Charging Interest under Section 215 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
  
  The petitioner was assessed under the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1974-75. The Income-tax Officer issued a notice requiring the petitioner to pay advance tax, which was duly paid. The petitioner anticipated a higher advance tax liability and sought an extension to file an estimate, which was granted by the Commissioner. The petitioner paid the estimated advance tax within the extended time. However, the Income-tax Officer charged interest under section 215 for not paying the advance tax within the financial year. The petitioner appealed against this decision, arguing that the interest should not be charged as the payment was made within the extended time allowed by the Commissioner.
  
  The Appellate Assistant Commissioner initially held that the order levying interest was not appealable. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal later remanded the case for reconsideration, leading to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ruling that there was no justification for charging interest. The Revenue appealed, and the Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner had not adequately considered the remaining portion of the interest not attributable to gratuity, thus allowing the interest to be charged.
  
  2. Interpretation of "Financial Year" under Section 215 in Relation to the Extended Time for Payment of Advance Tax under Section 212(3A):
  
  The core issue was whether the term "financial year" in section 215 should include the extended time allowed under section 212(3A). The petitioner argued that the advance tax paid within the extended time should be considered as paid within the financial year, thereby avoiding interest under section 215. The Revenue contended that the "financial year" did not include the extended time, and interest was chargeable for late payment.
  
  The court examined the relevant provisions, including sections 207, 208, 209, 209A, 211, and 212, and concluded that the "financial year" in section 215 should include the extended time as stipulated in the proviso to section 212(3A). The court reasoned that if the "financial year" did not include the extended time, the provisions allowing for such extensions would be meaningless. The court held that the legislative intent was to provide a benefit to the assessee by allowing an extension of time to pay advance tax, and this benefit should not be nullified by charging interest for payments made within the extended period.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The court ruled that no interest could be charged under section 215 for advance tax paid within the extended time allowed under section 212(3A). The orders dated February 2, 1982, and September 5, 1986, charging interest on the sum of Rs. 17,11,410 were set aside. The writ application succeeded, and a writ of mandamus was issued to withdraw, cancel, or rescind the impugned orders related to charging interest on the advance tax paid within the extended time. There was no order as to costs.

  ---

1 ....678910