Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.25 seconds)Section 276C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 278B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 278E in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Kuldip Rai Chopra, Income-Tax Officer, ... vs Sohan Singh Dhiman on 12 January, 1977
7. A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kuldip Rai Chopra, ITO v. Sohan Singh Dhiman [1977] 110 ITR 521 (524) has held that the intention of the Legislature in incorporating the words "and which he either knows or believes to be false, or does not believe to be true" in. Section 277 is obvious and prosecution would not follow in every case where a wrong statement is made and it will have to be judged as to whether the assessee harboured the required mens rea or not. In that case the court found that the accused gave a satisfactory explanation of the discrepancy not only in his own statement recorded under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code (old), but also by examining an employee of his factory who explained in detail the circumstances leading to the mention of wrong figures in the return.
British Transport Co. Ltd. vs Suraj Bhan And Ors. on 15 January, 1962
10. The Gujarat High Court in B. T. X. Chemicals (P.) Ltd. v. Suraj Bhan [1989] 177 ITR 425 held that an accused can be convicted under Section 276C of the Act if dishonest intention or mala fide intention is established. It was observed therein as follows (at page 426) :
D. Rahaman vs Bijaya Kishore Das on 6 January, 1981
9. The ratio of Bijayananda Patnaik's case [1982] 136 ITR 861 (Orissa) was followed by this court in D. Rahaman v. Bijaya Kishore Das [1982] 136 ITR 855. It was a case where the assessee, a partner in a firm and carrying on proprietary business, filed returns signed under his verification which were filled up by the accountants and the assessee was not present at the time of filing of the returns. The prosecution of the assessee for false verification in the returns was held to be unjustified because the prosecution failed to prove the mens rea or deliberate intention by the assessee to defraud revenue.
P. Rathinam/Nagbhusan Patnaik vs Union Of India And Another on 26 April, 1994
In this connection, he placed reliance on the decisions in Kuldip Rai Chopra, ITO v. Sohan Singh Dhiman [1977] 110 ITR 521 (P & H) ; Bijayanonda Patnaik v. Union of India [1982] 136 ITR 861 (Orissa) ; D. Rahaman v. Bijaya Kishore Das [1982] 136 ITR 855 (Orissa) and B. T. X. Chemicals (P.)