Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2012 (12) TMI 494 - HC - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Court quashes income tax recovery against public company, citing violation of natural justice. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the recovery proceedings for income tax dues of a public company. It was found that Section 179 of ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          Court quashes income tax recovery against public company, citing violation of natural justice.

                          The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the recovery proceedings for income tax dues of a public company. It was found that Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which typically applies to private companies, could be invoked due to the principle of lifting the corporate veil. However, the Assistant Commissioner's order was set aside for violating principles of natural justice. The case was remanded for a fresh hearing with proper notice and opportunity for the petitioner to respond to the allegations of corporate veil lifting.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Quashing the recovery proceedings against the petitioner for the income tax dues of a company.
                          2. Applicability of Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to a public company.
                          3. Principle of lifting the corporate veil.
                          4. Compliance with principles of natural justice.

                          Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Quashing the Recovery Proceedings:
                          The petitioner sought to quash the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondents for the income tax dues of M/s. M. Kantilal & Co. Ltd., Surat. The petitioner, a director of the company, challenged the orders passed by the respondents.

                          2. Applicability of Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
                          The petitioner contended that Section 179 of the Act, which allows for recovery of tax dues from directors of a private company, should not apply as the company in question was a public limited company. The Assistant Commissioner, however, proceeded under Section 179, arguing that the company was essentially a private entity disguised as a public company to evade tax obligations. The Commissioner upheld this view, emphasizing that the company was controlled by family members and did not offer shares to the public, thus justifying the application of Section 179.

                          3. Principle of Lifting the Corporate Veil:
                          The Assistant Commissioner applied the principle of lifting the corporate veil, concluding that the company was used as a conduit for generating unaccounted wealth, which was appropriated by the directors. Factors considered included:
                          - The company's undisclosed income was not reflected in its balance sheet.
                          - Directors and shareholders were family members.
                          - The company was formed to take over the business of a partnership firm where the directors were partners.
                          - Directors had created substantial assets in their own names.

                          The court reviewed several precedents where the corporate veil was lifted to prevent fraud or tax evasion, including cases like Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Escorts Ltd. The court agreed that if the factors noted were established, lifting the corporate veil was justified.

                          4. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
                          The court found that the Assistant Commissioner's order suffered from a gross violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner was not given sufficient notice or opportunity to respond to the grounds for lifting the corporate veil. The Assistant Commissioner's notice did not disclose the reasons for invoking this principle, and the petitioner's subsequent representation was not considered adequately.

                          Conclusion:
                          1. The respondent authorities established that tax dues could not be recovered from the company.
                          2. The petitioner did not prove that non-recovery was not due to his gross neglect, misfeasance, or breach of duty.
                          3. Section 179 of the Act generally does not apply to public companies, but lifting the corporate veil could justify its application if the noted factors are proven.
                          4. The Assistant Commissioner's order was quashed due to a lack of compliance with natural justice. The case was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner to proceed afresh, giving the petitioner a fair opportunity to respond to the grounds for lifting the corporate veil.

                          The court directed the Assistant Commissioner to issue a new notice, provide a fair hearing, and pass a fresh order based on the material on record, adhering to principles of natural justice.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found