SABYASACHI MUKHARJEE, SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX – Appellant
Versus
RUPABANI THEATRES P. LTD. – Respondent
( 1 ) IN this reference under Section 256 (1) of the I. T. Act, 1961, the following two questions have been referred to this court:" I. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a correct interpretation of Section 271 (1) (c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with the Explanation to that section, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the department had failed to prove concealment of income in regard to the sum of Rs. 26,000 and interest amounting to Rs. 1,096 by the assessee-company ?
( 2 ) WHETHER, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that apparently an artificial juridical person like a limited company is incapable of conscious concealment of income and it would be well nigh impossible for the department to prove the existence of mens rea in the case of a company and, hence, the company was not liable to penalty for concealment ? " 2. This reference relates to the assessment for the assessment year 1964-65. In the books of account of the assessee-company, there were cash credits aggregating to Rs. 26,000 in the name of four ladies who were alleged to be related to one of the dir
Referred to : CIT v. Khoday Eswarsa and Sons
Fattorini (Thomas) (Lancashire) Ltd. v. IRC
Anantharam Veerasinghaiah and Co. v. CIT
CIT v. Karnail Singh V. Kaleran
Rahmat Development and Engineering Corporation v. CIT
Stale of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.