Constitutional personal-liberty safeguards limit PMLA twin bail conditions where completed investigations lead to prolonged incarceration before trial...
Automated airline software subscriptions without human intervention fail technical-services characterisation and do not make available underlying tech...
Business support recruitment and training receipts qualify for presumptive business taxation, not professional taxation under technical consultancy ru...
Treaty exemption for foreign permanent-establishment management fees prevailed, while dividend expense disallowance remained limited to an accepted al...
Centralised assessment transfers: participation after requesting centralisation can bar technical jurisdictional challenges, while assessment disputes...
Binding precedent remains operative despite pending challenge, supporting deletion of interest disallowance when debt is converted into preference sha...
Page of 4918
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
241 to 260 of 98359 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC upheld criminal proceedings against assessee under s.276CC of Income Tax Act for willful delay in filing returns. Payment of penalty under Chapter 21 does not preclude prosecution under Chapter 22. Court distinguished from C.P Yogeshwara case where proceedings were quashed due to returns filed before sanction order. Applying s.278E presumption and following Sasi Enterprises precedent, HC ruled assessee must present defense evidence before Magistrate to rebut presumption of culpable mental state. Petition dismissed while preserving right to raise defenses during trial. Court emphasized separate nature of penalty and prosecution provisions under IT Act.
HC upheld criminal proceedings against assessee under s.276CC of Income Tax Act for willful delay in filing returns. Payment of penalty under Chapter 21 does not preclude prosecution under Chapter 22. Court distinguished from C.P Yogeshwara case where proceedings were quashed due to returns filed before sanction order. Applying s.278E presumption and following Sasi Enterprises precedent, HC ruled assessee must present defense evidence before Magistrate to rebut presumption of culpable mental state. Petition dismissed while preserving right to raise defenses during trial. Court emphasized separate nature of penalty and prosecution provisions under IT Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.