SASI ENTERPRISES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Egmore), Chennai, For The Willful & Deliberate Failure To File Returns For The Assessment Years 1991-92, 1992-93 & Hence Committing Offences Punishable Under Section 276 Cc Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”). Complaints Were Filed On 21.8.1997 After Getting The Sanction From The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Ii, Chennai Under Section 279(1) Of The Income Tax Act. Appellants Filed Two Discharge Petitions Under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C., Which Were Dismissed By The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vide Order Dated 14.6.2006. Appellants Preferred Crl. R.C. Nos.781 To 786 Of 2006 Before The High Court Of Madras Which Were Dismissed By The High Court Vide Its Common Order Dated 2.12.2006, Which Are The Subject Matters Of These Appeals.

Capital gains” and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub- section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, or sub- section (3) of section 74A, he may furnish, within the time allowed under sub-section (1), a return

NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN

142 of the Income Tax Act dated 29.08.2005. The appellant also challenged notice dated 31.08.2005 issued under Section 131 to the 4 Bankers of the appellant. Notice dated 21.09.2005 under Section 194A was also sought to be quashed. The writ petition was contested by the Income Tax Department. The High Court in the writ petition decided the only question “whether

M/S. MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS, KOTTAYAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM

Bench: This Court & On Leave Being Granted, Civil Appeals Have Been Registered. 3.

142 or having made a return fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under sub-section (2) of Section 143, the assessing officer after taking into account all relevant materials and after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard make the 29 assessment to the best of his judgment and determine the sum payable

KILLICK NIXON LTD., MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMNR. OF INCOME TAX,MUMBAI

In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High

142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’) The brief facts necessary to decide this appeal are as under: On 26th February, 1993 the appellant filed its return for assessment year 1992-93 and followed it up with a revised return. The Assessing Officer made an order dated 27th March, 1995 under Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

Appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

capital or revenue receipt. This additional issue has been raised in Civil Appeal No.9917 of 2017 (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Godawari Power and Ispat Pvt. Ltd.) and also in Civil Appeal No.8983 of 2017 (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Chhattisgarh Vs. M/s Godawari Power and Ispat Pvt. Ltd.) RECOMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

capital of other company which remains in existence and continues its undertaking but the context in which the term is used may show that it is intended to include such an acquisition. See: Halsbury's Laws of England (4th edition volume 7 para 1539). Two companies may join to form a new company, but there may be absorption or blending

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8 MUMBAI vs. GLOWSHINE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. MANAGING DIRECTOR

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

142(1). The assessee was requested to explain as under: ­ (i) “You   are   aware   that   perusal   of   AIR information,   copy   of   'Development Agreement'   dt.   06.05.2008   revealed that   you   had   entered   into "Development   Agreement"   with   M/s. Kirit   City   Homes   Mau,   Pvt.   Ltd   in respect of various properties as detailed in the said agreement. It is also seen that   you   had   received

A.L.A. FIRM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS

capital gains were chargeable to tax. Not satisfied, the I.T.O. issued a notice under section 148 read with Section 147(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee filed objections. Overruling all the objections, the Income Tax Officer completed reassessment of the assessee Firm adding back the sum of Rs. 1,58,057 to the previously assessed income. Having

M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

142 (SC). Under the Finance Act, 1951, a provision was enacted to discourage the declaration of dividend disproportionate to the declared income. It provided that where the "total income" exceeded the dividend by a certain amount, a rebate would be allowed, and where the dividend exceeded the "total income" by such amount, "an additional income tax" would be levied

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 vs. KHYATI REALTORS PVT. LTD

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

142(1) of the Act, calling for various details. The assessee filed its response thereto. The scrutiny assessment was completed by the AO under Section 143(3) on 30.12.2011, determining the total income of the assessee at ₹ 87,880/-. The assessee contended that an amount of ₹ 10 crores was deposited with one M/s C. Bhansali Developers Pvt. Ltd. towards acquisition

PRAKASH NATH KHANNA vs. COMMNR OF INCOME TAX

gains" and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of Section 72, or sub-section (2) of Section 73, or sub-section (1) or sub- section (3) of Section 74, or sub- section (3) of Section 74A, he may furnish within the time allowed under sub-section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) CIRCLE 1(2) vs. M/S M.R. SHAH LOGISTICS PVT. LTD

Appeal is allowed in these terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Gains (LTCG) in the shares of Shri Ganesh Spinners Limited (now known as Yantra Natural Resources Limited) from Shirish Chandrakant Shah (SCS) through Pradip Birewar. Pradip Birewar is an Ahmedabad based accommodation entry provider who is facilitating one time and other accommodation entries including LTCG entries to various clients on receipt of cash. He is facilitating these entries through bigger

MANSAROVAR COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

142(1) and 143(2) of the Act were issued for the first time in 1998 and were time barred is rejected. (viii) On merits there were sufficient grounds for exercising the power under Section 148 of the Act. (ix) The ITAT's conclusion that the interest under Sections 234 A and 234 B of the Act could

UNIVERSAL RADIATORS, COIMBATORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TAMIL NADU

Section 10(3) could be brought to tax if it was result of any business activity carried on by the assessee. The assessee carried on business of manufacturing radiators and not ingots. They were imported to be converted into strips and sheets at Bombay. The link which could create direct relationship between the finished goods and raw material was snapped

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST

The appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “I.T. Act”) was issued dated 01.08.2005 requiring the assessee to file a return for the assessment year 2003- 2004. A reply was submitted on behalf of the assessee that Urban Improvement Trust – the assessee is a municipality within the meaning of Article 243P of the Constitution of India

SAHARANPUR ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD. ETC. ETC. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ETC.ETC

142 I.T.R. 300 (Bom.); C.I.T. v. Panvel Taluka Electrical Development Co. Ltd., [1983] Taxation 71(1)-14 (Bom.);’ Ranch Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T., [1984] 150 I.T.R. 95 (Pat.); C.I.T. v. Lonawalla Khandalla Electric Supply Co.Ltd.,(1985) 22 Taxman 77 (Bom.); C.I.T v. Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd., [1987] 166 I.T.R. 797 (Cal); C.I.T. v. Bassein Electric Supply

PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) vs. LALJIBHAI KANJIBHAI MANDALIA

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

capital. The allegation against the company is in relation to cash deposits of total 6 Rs.13,79,10,500/- soon after demonetization on 08.11.2016. The satisfaction note prepared by DDIT (Investigation), Unit-1, Jalpaiguri was approved by Additional Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Unit- 5, Kolkata and further approved by DGIT (Investigation), Kolkata on 07.08.2018. The High Court also quoted

K.M. SHARMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 13(7),NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

capital gains tax was not leviable but tax was leviable on interest earned on the amount awarded on year to year basis. 4. The appellant through counsel sent a letter dated 17.9.1993 informing the ITO that he had received interest amount of Rs.76,84,829/- and interest accrued from year to year was assessable in each year. Year-wise break