Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 33 (1.08 seconds)
Mohamed I. Unjawala And Etc. Etc. vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 1 November, 1994
cites
Section 277 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 276C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 278B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Madura Chit And Investments Pvt. Ltd. ... vs Income-Tax Officer on 4 January, 1994
Khaja v. Sixth ITO (1992) 196 ITR 627 and Madura Chit and Investments P. Ltd. v. ITO (1994) 208 ITR 228 (Madras) have been already referred to by me and those decisions deal only with the prima facie allegations in the complaint for the purpose of prosecution of the assessee and the findings of the authorities under the Income-tax Act were not dealt with as there was no occasion for that situation. Therefore, those decisions also are not in any way helpful to the learned counsel for the respondent.
Section 271 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Patnaik & Co. Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Orissa on 16 July, 1986
9. So the question arises in which matters the criminal Court may disregard the findings of the authorities under the Income-tax Act and in which matters weight has to be given for such findings In this connection, I have to refer to the view of the Supreme Court in Patnaik and Compny Ltd. v. CIT , which I referred to above. The Supreme Court has accepted that the findings of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on the fact are final and the Court has no jurisdiction to go behind the statement of fact made by the tribunal. Therefore the criminal Court is bound to accept the findings of the tribunal, on the question of fact. The Tribunal in its order has held that the assessees did not attempt to conceal the amount as they themselves produced the registers for verification and that the person who made the mistake viz. the accountant was dead and therefore the mistake in the return was unknown to the partners of the firm making it as a bona fide mistake. In the view of the Tribunal, the partners were not aware of the mistaks in the return of assessment as the returns were prepared by the in-experienced accountant after the death of the previous accountant who wrote the accounts. In my considered view as the Tribunal has concluded that the mistak was not known to the partners, this finding on fact has to be accepted by the Court which deals with the criminal prosecution of the petitioners.
K.A. Khaja vs Sixth Income-Tax Officer on 11 October, 1990
Khaja v. Sixth ITO (1992) 196 ITR 627 and Madura Chit and Investments P. Ltd. v. ITO (1994) 208 ITR 228 (Madras) have been already referred to by me and those decisions deal only with the prima facie allegations in the complaint for the purpose of prosecution of the assessee and the findings of the authorities under the Income-tax Act were not dealt with as there was no occasion for that situation. Therefore, those decisions also are not in any way helpful to the learned counsel for the respondent.
S.R. Arulprakasam vs Prema Malini Vasan, Income-Tax ... on 18 December, 1984
In S. R. Arulprakasam v. Smt. Prema Malini Vasan, ITO (1987) 163 ITR 487, this Court has held that the filing of the revised return will not exonerate the criminal proceedings and penalty proceedings against the assessee. In that case, the assessee himself filed a revised return after the concealment had been detected by the Income-tax Officer and then proceedings were initiated against him and before the criminal Court he contended that the revised return filed by him disclosing the entire income should be accepted and it would wipe out the criminal proceedings against him. In that connection, S. A. Kadar, J, has observed that the filing of the revised return will not exonerate the contumacious conduct on the part of the assessee and criminal proceedings and penalty proceedings can be initiated against him. This decision does not touch upon the point in controversy with regard to the weight to be given for the findings of the Tribunal.