Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Ganga Sagar vs Emperor on 25 July, 1929

Konatham Bhaskar Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 November, 1984

Courts have held that, if a revised return is filed by an assessee bona fide prior to the detraction of concealment, then the conduct in filing voluntarily revised return could be considered as a mitigating circumstance to excuse the levy of penalty. It was held that when an assessee verifies and submits a false return, an offence is committed and the fact that subsequently the assessee files a revised return will not condone the offence. It is not necessary to refer to the number of cases under the Income-tax Act as the principle is far too well-settled without any dissent. We may, however, refer to the earliest case on this point in Ganga Sugar v. Emperor 4 ITC 97 (All.)
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P.V. Pai, B.R. Shetty, Biyar Rubbers ... vs R.L. Rinawma, Deputy Commissioner Of ... on 22 January, 1993

20. The next contention urged is with regard to the form of sanction accorded. Our attention was invited to the sanction order made by the Commissioner and to which we have referred above. It was urged on behalf of the petitioners that it records only the satisfaction of the Commissioner and though the petitioners are liable to be prosecuted for the various offences stated therein, it does not end with the statement that sanction was being accorded. The respondent's counsel, however, has argued that, if the subject specified at the commencement of the sanction order, the reasoning of the sanctioning authority and authorisation given to the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax to file complaint are considered, the order spells out that in fact sanction has been accorded, though no such specific words have been used in the order. We are unable to agree with the petitioners' counsel that the sanction is bad for this reason alone. Such a technical approach is impermissible. A perusal of the detailed order shows that in fact the Commissioner of Income-tax did consider the material placed before him on the subject of according sanction, gave reasons for his satisfaction and then authorised the Officer who should file the complaint. The cumulative effect of the consideration of all these facts only leads to an inference that sanction in fact has been accorded to prosecute the persons named in the order. The order as a whole should be looked into and effort should not be made to pick up holes on technical omissions. We, therefore, find that the order is not vitiated on this ground.
Karnataka High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P.V. Pai, B.R. Shetty, Biyar Rubbers ... vs R.L. Rinawma, Deputy Commissioner Of ... on 22 January, 1993

20. The next contention urged is with regard to the form of sanction accorded. Our attention was invited to the sanction order made by the Commissioner and to which we have referred above. It was urged on behalf of the petitioners that it records only the satisfaction of the Commissioner and though the petitioners are liable to be prosecuted for the various offences stated therein, it does not end with the statement that sanction was being accorded. The respondent's counsel, however, has argued that, if the subject specified at the commencement of the sanction order, the reasoning of the sanctioning authority and authorisation given to the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax to file the complaint are considered, the order spells out that in fact sanction has been accorded, though no such specific words have been used in the order. We are unable to agree with the petitioner's counsel that the sanction is bad for this reason alone. Such a technical approach is impermissible. A perusal of the detailed order shows that in fact the Commissioner of Income-tax did consider the material placed before him on the subject of according sanction, gave reasons for his satisfaction and then authorised the Officer who should file the complaint. The cumulative effect of the consideration of all these facts only leads to an inference that sanction in fact has been accorded to prosecute the persons named in the order. The order as a whole should be looked into and effort should not be made to pick out holes on technical omissions. We, therefore, find that the order is not vitiated on this ground.
Karnataka High Court Cites 54 - Cited by 41 - Full Document

In Re: Nalla Baligadu And Ors. vs Unknown on 9 February, 1953

32. In my opinion the fact that the Magistrate is empowered to order commitment under Section 347, Cr. P. C. at a later stage has really no material bearing on this question, and I have already adverted to this aspect of the matter. I fail to see any rational basis for this view. If really there is an implied order of discharge it does not stand to reason that the prosecution has to wait till the termination of the proceedings before the Magistrate. The view taken by the learned Judges implies that the order of discharge springs into existence only after the proceedings before the Magistrate end either in an acquittal or on a conviction. It looks to me that the very basis of the judgment in that case that there is an implied discharge in the circumstances stated there is opposed to the notion that the order of discharge comes into effect only at the end of the proceedings before the Magistrate. This theory can be supported only on the assumption that it is only the conviction or acquittal of the minor offence by a Magistrate that would give rise to an order of discharge. It that basis is not accepted, there can be no impediment in the way of the exercise of revisional powers under Section 437, Cr, P. C. Mr. Chinnappa Reddy next called in aid some observations of Govinda Menon J. in -- 'AIR 1949 Madras 66 at p. 67 (D)'.
Madras High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Emperor vs Nanhua Dhimar And Ors. on 9 July, 1930

7. It is to be remembered that the offence of kidnapping from lawful guardianship is not a continuing offence. As soon as the minor is actually removed out of the custody of his or her guardian the offence is completed. The offence is not a continuing one as long as the minor is kept out of guardianship. But unlike kidnapping abduction is a continuing offence, and has been held to be a continuing offence in re Ganga Dei v. Emperor [1914] 15 Cr. L.J. 154 which has been followed in Sunder Singh v. Emperor A.I.R. 1925 Oudh 328. It has been held in these cases that a girl is being abducted not only when she is first taken from any place put also when she is removed from one place to another.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1