Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (8.50 seconds)

Ito 19(1)(1), Mumbai vs Madhu C. Ganwani, Mumbai on 7 November, 2016

15. It is relevant to observe that it is an admitted case that the copies of all documents, which were seized during the search and seizure operations, were not provided to the accused. Accused, no doubt has sent various letters asking for supply of deficit documents. During the course of defence evidence, defence ITO vs Madhu Saraf CC No.518254/2016 Page No.13 of 14 witnesses had admitted the filing of letter dated 22.04.2013 by the accused alongwith detailed annexures regarding the deficit documents. It is an admitted fact that post search proceedings were also taken up by the complainant. Panchnamas were prepared and accused had made several written requests for supplying the copies of the statements as well as of seized material. Accused persons kept on raising the demand for supply of deficit documents at all the relevant stages of the case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 8 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Union Of India vs Central India Machinery Manufacturing ... on 6 April, 1977

13. No, doubt The quitessence of the offence under Section 276 CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, lies in the willfulness of delay in filing return as observed in UOI vs. Bhanecha Machinery and other (2010) 320 ITR 263 (MP). With respect to present case, let us first of all understand Section 276CC of Income Tax Act, 1961, which is read as under ;
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 44 - R S Sarkaria - Full Document
1   2 3 Next