Search Results For: Gopal Subramanium


Srinidhi Karti Chidambaram vs. PCIT (Madras High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 2, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 16, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Entire law on whether complaint and sanction for prosecution of offenses can be quashed as being without proper application of mind explained in the context of s. 55 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (All judgements on the subject of prosecution of offenses discussed)

Before proceeding with any action, it is the duty of the assessing officer to arrive at a conclusion, as to whether, there is an undisclosed income under Section 2(11) and a duty is cast on the assessing officer to form an opinion, under Section 2(11). Expression, “undisclosed source of investment” depends on the existence of the above and the opinion is dependent on each one of the facts. Show cause notice issued is totally extraneous to Section 2(11) of the Act. At this juncture, it is pertinent to consider, what “satisfaction” means. “Satisfaction” means to be satisfied with a state of things, meaning thereby, to be satisfied in one’s own mind. Satisfaction is essentially a conclusion of mind. The word “satisfied” means, “makes up its mind”

Maharao Bhim Singh of Kota vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 5, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: December 6, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 1978-79
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 10(19A): Though principles of res judicata do not apply, the Dept should not endlessly pursue matters which have attained finality in earlier years. Principles of interpretation of statutes explained. Interplay between s. 10(19A), s. 23 of the Income-tax Act & s. 5(iii) of the Wealth-tax Act explained

Though principle of res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings and each assessment year is an independent year in itself, yet, in our view, in the absence of any valid and convincing reason, there was no justification on the part of the Revenue to have pursued the same issue again to higher Courts. There should be a finality attached to the issue once it stands decided by the higher Courts on merits. This principle, in our view, applies to this case on all force against the Revenue

CIT vs. Meghalaya Steels Ltd (Supreme Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 5, 2015 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 18, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 260A: High Courts, being Courts of Record under Article 215, have the inherent power of review. There is nothing in s. 260A(7) to restrict the applicability of the provisions of the CPC to s. 260A appeals

High Courts being Courts of Record under Art. 215 of the Constitution of India, the power of review would in fact inhere in them. Section 260A(7) only states that all the provisions that would apply qua appeals in the Code of Civil Procedure would apply to appeals under Section 260A. That does not in any manner suggest either that the other provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are necessarily excluded or that the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction is in any manner affected

Top