cites: 49531708

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Beawar, ... vs M/S. Manirtanam Gems Pvt. Ltd, Chhajer ... on 18 March, 2019

CT. CASES 529496/2016 ITO VS. MS NAFTOGAZ INDIA PVT LTD 7 / 31 5.2 The statement of Accused No. 2, Sh. Mahdoom Bava, was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 31.05.2017. He denied all the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the testimony of complainant's witnesses and stated that no show-cause notice had been received by him and that as per the order dated 08.10.2012 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the company had gone into provisional liquidation. Accused no. 2 further stated that he was therefore not aware of any reply dated 27.12.2012. He specifically disclaimed knowledge of the reply dated 27.07.2012 (Ex. PW1/6) and stated that no TDS was deducted as alleged by the complainant who has filed a false case.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Section 278B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 586

Section 276B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 463

Section 279 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 615

Section 278E in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 225

The Income Tax Act, 1961

Union of India - Act Cites 0 - Cited by 110052

Section 133A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 5691

Section 278AA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 44

M/S.Sabari Enterprises P. Ltd,, Kollam vs The Acit, Cen-Circle, Kollam on 13 December, 2018

Third, the Supreme Court in Sasi Enterprises v. ACIT (2014) 361 ITR 163 held unequivocally that technical objections to sanction cannot defeat prosecution where the facts of the offence are clearly recorded in the sanction document and the authority had applied its mind. The ratio of that decision squarely applies here.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cochin Cites 28 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Madhumilan Syntex Ltd. & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr on 23 March, 2007

First, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhumilan Syntex Ltd. and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. (2007) 290 ITR 616 (SC) held that a sanction under Section 279 is an administrative act of authorization and not a pleading before a court of law. The sanction must be read as a whole to determine the intent and scope of authorization. Isolating one paragraph while ignoring five paragraphs that clearly identify the company's offence and the role of its Director would be a perverse reading that the law does not countenance.

Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 63 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results