Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: income tax act 1961 section 155 other amendments Court: sebi securities and exchange board of india or securities appellate tribunal sat Page 1 of about 62 results (0.900 seconds)

Sms Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Reported in : (2004)49SCL117SAT

..... not insisted upon". he cited the observation made by the hon'ble supreme court in another case also(commissioner of income tax, patna v sahu jain (1976) 2 scc 510) relating to interpretation of the provisions of section 23a(1) of the income tax act, 1922 - "having regard to the intimate relationship of the shareholders without the least evidence of any disconcert amongst them, the ..... owns the shares carrying more than seventy five per cent of the voting power, were acting in unison. the observation was made in the context of interpreting section 23.a (1) of the income tax act, as it stood at that point of time. he also cited commissioner of income tax, west bengal v east coast commercial co.ltd., (air 1962 sc 768) and stated that .....

Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Reported in : (2003)42SCL521SAT

..... the distinguishable nature of the relevant provisions under the income-tax and the sebi act. these two decisions are with specific reference to provisions of section 271(1)(a) of the income-tax act. the said section 271(1)(a) provides that a penalty may be imposed if the income tax officer is satisfied that any person has without reasonable ..... cause failed to furnish the return of income. thus the burden is ultimately on the assessee to plead and ..... the penalty is attracted per se the violation. the adjudicating officer has to satisfy that the violation deserved punishment.55. supreme court decision in additional commissioner of income-tax (supra), which is a reiteration of the ratio in the gujarat travancore agency's case (supra) relied on by the respondent to show that it .....

Sundaram Finance Ltd., Wheels Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of Ind ...

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Reported in : (2003)3CompLJ145SAT

..... the distinguishable nature of the relevant provisions under the income tax and the sebi act. these two decisions are with specific reference to provisions of section 271(i)(a) of the income tax act. the said section 271 (1)(a) provides that a penalty may be imposed if the income tax officer is satisfied that any person has without reasonable ..... cause failed to furnish the return of income. thus the burden is ultimately on the assessee to plead ..... the penalty is attracted perse the violation. the adjudicating officer has to satisfy that the violation deserved punishment.53. supreme court decision in additional commissioner of income tax (supra), which is a reiteration of the ratio in the gujarat travancore agency case(supra) relied on by the respondent to show that it is not .....

Mr. Satyadeva Prakash Sinha, Ms. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Reported in : (2003)4CompLJ491SAT

..... the distinguishable nature of the relevant provisions under the income tax and the sebi act. these two decisions are with specific reference to provisions of section 271(i)(a) of the income tax act. the said section 271 (1)(a) provides that a penalty may be imposed if the income tax officer is satisfied that any person has without reasonable ..... cause failed to furnish the return of income. thus the burden is ultimately on the assessee to plead ..... the penalty is attracted perse the violation. the adjudicating officer has to satisfy that the violation deserved punishment.19. supreme court decision in additional commissioner of income tax (supra), which is a reiteration of the ratio in the gujarat travancore agency case(supra) relied on by the respondent to show that it is not .....

Doogar and Associates Ltd. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Reported in : (2003)48SCL115SAT

..... the distinguishable nature of the relevant provisions under the income tax and the sebi act. these two decisions are with specific reference to provisions of section 271(i)(a) of the income tax act. the said section 271 (1)(a) provides that a penalty may be imposed if the income tax officer is satisfied that any person has without reasonable ..... cause failed to furnish the return of income. thus the burden is ultimately on the assessee to plead ..... that the penalty is attracted perse the violation. the adjudicating officer has to satisfy that the violation deserved punishment.supreme court decision in additional commissioner of income tax (supra), which is a reiteration of the ratio in the gujarat travancore agency case(supra) relied on by the respondent to show that it is not .....

Toubro Infotech and Industries Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of In ...

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Reported in : (2005)3CompLJ305SAT

..... judicial pronouncement is available in the form of case law is that of 'circulars' under the income-tax act. we have, therefore, perused the income-tax act. it appears that a 'circular' is not defined in the income-tax act just as 'guidelines' are not in the sebi act. the supreme court in k.p. varghese v. ito [1981] 131 itr 597, ..... 7 taxman 13 pronounced that circulars are binding on income tax authorities and further they are in ..... of the appellants that they are being proceeded or prosecuted under sebi disclosure and investors protection guidelines, 2000.38. there is no definition of 'guidelines' in the act. however, the guidelines, 2000 themselves define 'guidelines' under paragraph 1.2.1(xiv) and it reads as hereunder : "(xiv) 'guidelines' means securities and exchange .....

Satyadeva Prakash Sinha Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Reported in : (2003)44SCL381SAT

..... of the distinguishable nature of the relevant provisions under the income-tax and the sebi act. these two decisions are with specific reference to provisions of section 271(1)(a) of the income-tax act. the said section 271(1)(a) provides that a penalty may be imposed if the income-tax officer is satisfied that any person has without reasonable cause ..... failed to furnish the return of income. thus the burden is ultimately on the assessee to plead and ..... the court cited above was in answer to the question 'whether the tribunal is right in holding that the penalties under section 12(5) of the act (orissa sales tax act, 1947) had been rightly levied?' the facts of the present case are reasonably comparable with the case cited above. in the light of the clear observation .....

Yogi Sungwon (India) Ltd. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

..... is not relevant to the present case in view of the distinguishable nature of the relevant provisions under the income-tax and the sebi act. these two decisions are with specific reference to provisions of section 271(1)(a) of the income-tax act, 1961. the said section 271(1)(a) provides that a penalty may be imposed if the ito is satisfied ..... that any person has without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return of income. thus the burden is ultimately on the assessee to plead and prove ..... observation of the court cited above was in answer to the question : "whether the tribunal is right in holding that the penalties under section 12(5) of the act (orissa sales-tax act, 1947) had been rightly levied ?" 24. in this context it is also relevant to know the significance of the expression 'shall be liable to a penalty' .....

Kensigton Investment Ltd. Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

..... the distinguishable nature of the relevant provisions under the income tax and the sebi act. these two decisions are with specific reference to provisions of section 271(i)(a) of the income tax act. the said section 271 (1)(a) provides that a penalty may be imposed if the income tax officer is satisfied that any person has without reasonable ..... cause failed to furnish the return of income. thus the burden is ultimately on the assessee to plead ..... penalty is attracted per se the violation. the adjudicating officer has to satisfy that the violation deserved punishment.64. supreme court decision in additional commissioner of income tax (supra), which is a reiteration of the ratio in the gujarat travancore agency case(supra) relied on by the respondent to show that it is not .....

Kishore Rajaram Chhabria Vs. the Chairman Securities and

Court : SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

Reported in : (2003)46SCL385SAT

..... as an english expression. in the instant case "persons acting in concert" is a defined term in the regulations and there ..... d) of 1994 regulations. 2 commissioner of income-tax v east coast commercial co. ltd. air 1967 sc 768: this reported case was in connection with section 23(a)(1) of the income tax act 1922. the expression "acting in concert" was not used in the said section or in that act. the expression "acting in concert" was used by the supreme court ..... after having regard to the relation, conduct and common intention to infer that persons must be acting together. evidence of actual concerted acting is normally difficult to obtain and is not insisted upon. in m/s mcdowell & co. v/s commercial tax officer (air 1986 s.c.649) the hon'ble supreme court has inter alia, held .....