| Case ID |
452796e7-c404-4a68-a628-75e278b82a3e |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
|
| Decision Date |
|
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court held that the complaint could not be quashed as the allegations made were sufficient to disclose an offence under the Income-tax Act. The petitioner argued that SRP personnel were deployed and thus the claimed expenditure was legitimate. However, the court found the claim of deployment to be disputed by the revenue authorities, concluding that the complaint was valid. The decision emphasized the importance of the context of the complaint in determining the presence of an offence, and ultimately dismissed the petitioner's request to quash the complaint. |
| Summary |
In the case involving Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd. versus the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, the court examined allegations of willful tax evasion under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner claimed expenses for Special Reserve Police personnel deployed at their factory, which the revenue disputed as fictitious. The court ruled that the complaint could not be dismissed based on the petitioner's defense, emphasizing the need to evaluate the allegations within the complaint's context. Key sections of the Income-tax Act were referenced, including 276C, 277, and 278B. The ruling reinforces the principle that the validity of a complaint is determined by its allegations rather than the potential for acquittal based on a defense. This case sheds light on the complexities of tax law and the legal standards for evaluating the merits of tax-related complaints, making it significant for legal practitioners and entities in the taxation domain. |
| Court |
Calcutta High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Mrs. Ruma Pal, J.
|
| Lawyers |
Dr. Debi Pal,
S. Chakraborty,
S.K. Deb,
N.L. Pal,
R.N. Mitra
|
| Petitioners |
Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Ltd.
|
| Respondents |
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Citations |
1992 SLD 1723,
(1992) 197 ITR 639
|
| Other Citations |
Burmah-Shell Oil Storage & Distributing Co. of India Ltd. v. ITO [1978] 112 ITR 592 (Cal.),
Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 1(SC),
Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. v. Asstt. CST [1980] 124 ITR 15 (SC),
P.C. Doshi v. Seventh ITO [1967] 65 ITR 187 (Bom.),
Estate & Trust Agencies (1927) Ltd. v. Singapore Improvement Trust AIR 1937 PC 265,
Girindranath Paul v. ITO [1975] 99 ITR 426(Cal.),
ITO v. Burmah Shell Oil Storage & Distributing Co. of India Ltd. [1987] 163 ITR 496 (Cal.),
Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre AIR 1988 SC 709,
S. Santosha Nadar v. First Addl., ITO [1961] 42 ITR 715 (Mad.),
State of Haryana v. Chadhury Bhajan Lal [1990] 4 JT 650 (SC),
State of West Bengal v. Swapan Kuymar Guha [1983] 53 Comp. Cas. 114 (SC),
Smt. Suniti Devi Jaipuria v. ITO [1971] 79 ITR 391 (Cal.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
276C,
277,
278B
|