Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 34 (0.79 seconds)
Kanhaiyalal Rameshwar Das,Kota vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 8 October, 2025
cites
Section 139 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Advocates Act, 1961
Section 274 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Dilip N. Shroff vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 18 May, 2007
It was only the
ultimate inference in Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT to the effect that mens rea was
an essential ingredient for the penalty under section 271(1) (c) that the decision
in Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT was overruled.
Section 154 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Union Of India & Ors vs M/S. Dharamendra Textile Processors ... on 29 September, 2008
The basic reason why
decision in Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT was overruled by this court in Union of
India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors, was that according to this court the
effect and difference between section 271(1)(c) and section 276C of the Act was
lost sight of in the case of Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT However, it must be pointed
out that in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors, no fault was found
with the reasoning in the decision in Dilip N. Shroff v. Joint CIT, where the court
explained the meaning of the terms "conceal" and "inaccurate".