Search Results For: 277


Arun Arya Vs. ITO (J&K High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 28, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: October 13, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Prosecution u/s 276-C/277: S. 278E carves out an exception to the rule of mens rea. The burden of proving the absence of mens rea is upon the accused. The absence needs to be proved not only to the basic threshold of “preponderance of probability” but “beyond reasonable doubt”. In every prosecution case, the Court shall always presume culpable mental state and it is for the accused to prove the contrary beyond reasonable doubt. This presumption is a rebuttable one

When a calculating tax dodger finds it a profitable proposition to carry on evading taxes over the years, if the only risk to which he is exposed is a monetary penalty in the year in which he happens to be caught. The public in general also tends to lose faith and confidence in tax administration when a tax evader is caught, but the administration lets him get away lightly after paying only a monetary penalty- when money is no longer a major consideration with him if it serves his business interest

Vikram Singh vs. UOI (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 23, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 27, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 279(2): Entire law on the compounding of offenses u/s 276C, 277 read with S. 278D explained in the context of whether the CBDT Guidelines on compounding of offenses dated 23.12.2014 prescribing eligibility conditions and the formula for calculating the compounding fee are valid or unreasonable

The petitioner having voluntarily agreed and undertaken to the department to pay the compounding charges and to withdraw his appeal, ought to be directed to be bound down by the same. It is a settlement process voluntarily invoked by the petitioner in order to escape criminal prosecution under the Act. Since an accused may have to suffer severe consequences for non-payment of tax, if he is held to be guilty, it is not open to him to challenge the reasonableness of the same. The petitioner had consciously undertaken to abide by the decision of the Committee constituted for compounding the offences

Ambience Hospitality Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 23, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 30, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2007-08
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 276C/277 Prosecution: Submission that claim of depreciation on land was a “mere clerical mistake” is not acceptable if the assessee did not file a revised return to correct the alleged mistake. A claim in a return which is scrutinized by the auditors and the directors cannot be considered as a mere accounting mistake

It is a manifest procedure that before filing of the Income Tax return for the assessment year 2007-2008 by the petitioner, the same is scrutinized, firstly, by the auditors of the company. Secondly, by the directors of the company before endorsing their signatures on the final Balance Sheet. Therefore, it cannot be considered as a mere accounting mistake

Top