HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
M/s Ambey Constructech Company & Ors. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Bathinda & Anr.
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No. 41863 of 2026
No separate citation stated in the source ·
276C
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
2 judicial members · Manoj Misra · Satish Chandra Sharma
01 · Facts of the case
The company and others challenged a Punjab and Haryana High Court order in a tax-prosecution matter. They relied on a Tribunal finding concerning disclosure of Rs 15 crore, while acknowledging that expenses had not been allowed.
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The order records the petitioners’ submission that those circumstances negated wilful evasion or default for section 276C. The Supreme Court did not decide that contention.
Source: paragraphs 2 / PDF pages 1, 2
03 · Judicial decision
Delay in refiling was condoned. Notice was issued, returnable in six weeks; further proceedings pursuant to the impugned complaint were stayed in the meantime.
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
In whose favour: Petitioners obtained interim protection; merits undecided
Delay in refiling was condoned. Notice was issued, returnable in six weeks; further proceedings pursuant to the impugned complaint were stayed in the meantime.
No final tax-merits ruling in this order
Source: paragraphs 3-4 / PDF pages 1, 2
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
This is an interim prosecution order. It does not establish that disclosure of a receipt invariably bars section 276C prosecution or that the underlying complaint was quashed. Verify subsequent orders before describing the stay as current.
Source: paragraphs 2-4 / PDF pages 1, 2
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete identified source PDF: 2 pages. Original bytes preserved.
- Historical procedural status as of the order date only. No assertion that an interim direction remains operative today; inspect later docket orders before relying on it.
- Submissions recited in this order are not final findings.
- No citation printed in the source order
- Not stated in the reviewed order
Statutory scope
Current statutory equivalence and applicability under the Income-tax Act, 2025 have not been verified.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-04. Subsequent appeals, review proceedings, stays, reversals and later judicial treatment have not been comprehensively checked. This note is not a citator status certificate.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
Identified source links
- official record of proceedings — PDF 2 pages
SHA-256: da60c4b3ce9b69958f2c247062aebeb5283a3932cd53ed094e7db2173ca264c2
Coverage, AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
Selected Supreme Court income-tax decisions and procedural orders checked against their identified sources. This collection is not exhaustive. The research catalogue has 2,569 indexed PDF assets, including alternate copies and incidental matches; that is not a count of unique or reviewed judgments. Historical and unreported coverage remains open.
AI-assisted research checked against the identified source. Extraction, interpretation or omission errors remain possible. Source review does not mean independent approval by a practising professional. Verify every material statement against the complete original judgment.
General research information only; not legal or tax advice, a certified judgment or a substitute for the full order. Applicability depends on facts, assessment year, statutory version and jurisdiction. Subsequent treatment is unverified unless a note expressly identifies the sources checked. Downloading does not create a professional engagement. Obtain case-specific advice before reliance.
The official 1961–2025 structural correspondence does not establish that a precedent applies under the new Act. Verify the enacted wording, commencement and transitional provisions separately.