Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 67 (1.00 seconds)Ventura Textiles Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-Mumbai ... on 12 June, 2020
17. Thus, at this stage of the proceedings, the moot question which has
arisen before us, is whether we should accept the assessee's contention as urged
by Ms. Vissanji, learned counsel for the appellant, that the proceedings would
stand covered by the decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ventura
Textiles Ltd. (supra). That is as the Assessing Officer failed to tick mark in the
show cause notice the relevant limb of Section 271(1)(c) whether in the facts of
the case, the penalty proceedings would stand vitiated.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 271 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
State Bank Of Patiala & Ors vs S.K.Sharma on 27 March, 1996
In the present case, applying such principles of natural justice, the
assessee at no point of time, had discharged the basic burden of prejudice being
caused to it. In State Bank of Patiala & Ors. Vs. S. K. Sharma (supra), the
Court observed that the respondent in such case, neither before the enquiry
officer nor before the trial Court, or the appellate Court, had protested that he
was denied of an adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses
effectively or to defend himself properly on account of non-supply of the
statements of witnesses. In such circumstances, the Court observed that it was
possible to say that there has been a substantial compliance of the enquiry
procedure. The Court also observed that the question would be whether each
and every violation of rules or regulations governing the enquiry automatically
vitiated the enquiry and the punishment awarded or whether the test of
substantial compliance can be invoked in cases of such violation and whether
the issue has to be examined from the point of view of prejudice. Answering
such issue, the Court observed that the test in such cases should be one of
prejudice. The Court also observed that there may be some procedural
provisions, as also there may be provisions, which are fundamental in nature, in
which case the theory of substantial compliance may not be applicable as
discussed in paragraph 11 of the said decision.
Section 260A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Principal Commr. Of Income Tax ... vs M/S Goa Coastal Resorts And Recreation ... on 31 August, 2021
60. It is in such context, the Full Bench considered the issues in this regard
namely the issues falling on the line of reasoning in Principal Commissioner of
Income-tax (Central), Bengaluru vs. Goa Coastal Resorts and Recreation (P.)
Section 124 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 263 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
S. L. Kapoor vs Jagmohan & Ors on 18 September, 1980
In S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan [(1980) 4 SCC 379] , rejecting the
argument that observance of natural justice would have made no
difference, this Court said:(SCC p. 395, para 24)
"24. ... The non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudice to
any man and proof of prejudice independently of proof of denial
of natural justice is unnecessary. It ill comes from a person who
has denied justice that the person who has been denied justice is
not prejudiced."