M/s. M. Ramnarain Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. State Trading Corpn. Of India Ltd.

SMT. ASHA CHHABRA,BATHINDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1), BATHINDA

In the result, the ground no

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

…her in the statement. The ld. AO reopened the assessment u/s 148 for escapement of income related to Rs.4 lac. The ld Counsel has mentioned in court that recorded reason is the “reason to suspect” but not “reasons to believe”, ITO v. LakhmaniMewal Das [1976] 3 SCC 75.With respectful observation of the apex court that the vague reason should not be accepted. But the reason recorded by the ld. AO is not factually incorrect. The recent judgment of Hon’ableSupreme Court of Indiain the case of Principal Director of Income-tax (Investigation) v. LaljibhaiKanjibhaiMandalia, [2022] 140 taxmann.com 282 (SC), the observ…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PEPSI FOODS LTD. (NOW PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.)

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

…REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1106 OF 2021 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.30284 OF 2015] DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. ..APPELLANTS VERSUS M/S. PEPSI FOODS LTD. ..RESPONDENT (NOW PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1125 OF 2021 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.32081 OF 2017] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1107 OF 2021 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.34987 OF 2015] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1108 OF 2021 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.31311 OF 2015] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1109 OF 2021 [ARISING OUT…

INDIA AWAKE FOR TRANSPARENCY vs. THE CHAIRMAN

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad

…s abandoned the cause which would otherwise be available to him in law. 9. The learned counsel lastly urges that the reliance on the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1[3] of the Code of Civil 2 (1983) 3 SCC 75 3 (1970) 1 Supreme Court Cases 761 11 Procedure, 1908 [for short ‘the CPC’] to assert that the petitioner has unconditionally withdrawn the writ petition in W.P. No.3635/2020[PIL] and therefore, the petitioner is precluded from pursuing the present writ petition is not a sound submission. The expression “unconditional” in the orders of t…

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

…. AIR 1967 SC 1857 90. (1939) 1 ALLER 423 (PC) 91. AIR 1964 SC 1882 92. AIR 1955 SC 810 93. 1987 (32) ELT 465 (Mad) 94. (1972) 2 SCC 620 95. (2002) 3 SCC 481 96. (1951) 2 ALL ER 1 (HL) 97. (2004) 8 SCC 579 98. (2003) 11 SCC 584 99. (2004) 3 SCC 75 100. 2008 LAP 340 101. (2008) 16 SCC 14 102. (1972)2 WLR 537 103. (2004) 6 SCC 186 104. (2002) 80 ECC 328 105. (2006) 1 SCC 368 106. Full Bench Judgment in TRC Nos.274 of 2001 and batch dated 25.11.2011 107. AIR 1990 AP 171 108. (2001) 5 SCC 407 109. (2001)8 SCC 676 4 110. (2001) 8 SCC 540 111. (2004)11 SCC 625 112. (1…

M/S. AMBICA INDUSTRIES vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

…n this Court opined that no distinction could legitimately been drawn between the right to sue and cause of action unless so indicated in the relevant statute. Yet again in M/s. M. Ramnarain Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State Trading Corpn. Of India Ltd. (1983) 3 SCC 75, a right to appeal was held to be carrying with it distinct cause of action stating :- "It is his submission that in considering the provisions of Order 23, Rule 1, the relevant fact to be borne in mind is the subject matter of the appeal and if the subject matter of the appeal be different, as in the present case it is the earlier appeal No.…