Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)
Income-Tax Officer vs Delhi Fruit Company on 4 February, 2002 cites

Madras Spinners Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 12 August, 1992

The aforesaid two decisions were followed by the Kerala High Court in Madras Spinners Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [1993] 203 ITR 282. He also challenged the finding about limitation on the ground that there was no limitation as far as the criminal proceedings are concerned. He also disputed the finding that there was no sanction of the appropriate authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cochin Cites 2 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Satpal Kapoor vs State Of Punjab on 9 February, 1995

4. It is at this stage that the Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Jalandhar, filed another complaint against the firm and all the six partners accusing them of offences punishable under sections 276C and 277 read with section 278B of the Act. The said complaint has been dismissed vide impugned order dated March 24, 2000, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Chief Judicial Magistrate noted that two of the accused-partners, namely, Darshan Lal and Vinod Kumar, had died during the pendency of the proceedings before him and, therefore, the proceedings against them could not continue. Regarding the other accused, he referred to the partnership deed and found that only Ram Sarup was the active partner who was responsible for the day-to-day carrying on of the business of the firm and the other partners were merely dormant in business. He, therefore, held that in view of the decision of this court in SatPal v. State of Punjab [1993] 200 ITR 139, besides the firm it was only the person or partner who, at the time of commission of offence was in charge of and was responsible to the firm for the conduct of its business, who was liable to be prosecuted. Thus, according to him only Ram Sarup could be proceeded against. He also found that even the return of income and other documents filed along with it, were signed and verified by Ram Sarup alone. Thus, according to him, no other partner could be held responsible for any act done by Ram Sarup. Coming to the liability of Ram Sarup, the court found that he had already been discharged of the same offences in a similar complaint on January 7, 1985, and the order of discharge had become final. Therefore, he held that no second complaint for the same offences was maintainable. The complaint was held to be not maintainable on the ground of limitation as also for want of sanction of the appropriate authority in accordance with section 279(1) of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

D.N. Bhasin And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 6 August, 1987

In D. N. Bhasin's case [1988] 171 ITR 7 (P & H), certain additions were made in reassessment proceedings on the basis of material seized during the course of search in the assessee's premises. On the basis of these additions, criminal complaints were also filed under sections 276C and 277 of the Act against the assessee. The additions were deleted in appeal by the first appellate authority. The Revenue had filed appeals before the Tribunal which were pending. It was at this stage that the accused-assessee had filed petitions for quashing of the criminal complaints as the additions which were the basis of the complaints, did not survive after the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Revenue had resisted these petitions on the ground that the appeals filed by it were pending before the Tribunal. It was, therefore, held that since the additions had been deleted by the Commissioner (Appeals), the proceedings had to be quashed. However, it was made clear that in case the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) were set aside by the Tribunal and that order achieves finality, the Revenue would be entitled to file fresh complaints against the assessee on the same facts and grounds in accordance with law. Similar was the position in the cases of W. L. Kohli [1985] 152 ITR 154 (Delhi) and Madras Spinners Limited [1993] 203 ITR 282 (Ker). The case in hand is entirely different. The earlier complaint in the present case was not quashed on the ground that the assessment had been set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but the accused had been discharged. The proper remedy for the Revenue under such circumstances would have been to challenge the order of discharge on the ground of pendency of its appeal before the Tribunal and obtain a clarification or direction like the one given in the three authorities cited before us. Thus, no fault can be found with the finding of the Chief Judicial Magistrate that no second complaint against an accused on the same charges and on the same facts and grounds was maintainable. Since the impugned order can be upheld on this ground itself, we do not find it necessary to deal with the other grounds on which the complaint has been held to be not maintainable.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1