PRAKASH NATH KHANNA vs. COMMNR OF INCOME TAX

delay in filing a return without contumacious conduct and mens rea being established could not make the petitioner liable for prosecution. 6. Petitioner having been subjected to levy of interest under Section 139(1) and also to penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act, could not further be prosecuted for the same defaults. Per contra, learned counsel

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S WOODWARD GOVERNOR INDIA P. LTD

Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. In this batch of civil appeals, the following question arises for determination: (i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the additional liability arising on account of fluctuation in the rate of exchange in respect of loans taken for revenue purposes could be allowed as deduction under Section

M/S. SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

condone any delay in making such report. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Central Government may, on the recommendation

MESSRS MELA RAM & SONS vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,PUNJAB

condonation of delay under section 30(2), there is, in law, no appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, and that an order by him rejecting the appeal does not fall within section 31 and is not appealable: Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mysore Iron and Steel Works(1

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S HONGO INDIA(P) LTD

Bench: Enactment Of Act 49/2005), With Regard To Application For Reference, The High Court Exercises Its Advisory Jurisdiction In A Case Where The Substantial Question Of Law Of Public Importance Arise, The Said Bench Directed The Matter To Be Heard By Larger Bench. In This Way, All The Above Mentioned Matters Arising From The Judgments Of The Allahabad High Court On Identical Issue Posted Before This Bench For Determining The Question, Namely, “Whether The High Court In The Reference Application Under Section 35H (1) Of The Unamended Act, Has Power Under Section 5 Of 2

condone delay even beyond the prescribed period if there was sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. 6) Section 35EE provides revision by Central Government. As per sub-section (2), an application under sub-section (1

SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM THR. FINANCE DIRECTOR MR. YOSHIHISA MIZUNO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III N.D

The appeals are hereby disposed of in terms of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

Delay in filing SLP(C) Diary No. 22308/2022 is condoned. Digitally signed by CHETAN ARORA Date: 2025.12.19 17:14:51 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2 2. I.A. No. 114870/2022 is allowed. 3. Leave granted in SLP(C) No. 16277/2014, SLP(C) No. 24756/2014, SLP(C) No. 719/2020 and SLP(C) No.__/2025 (arising out of Diary No. 22308/2022). 4. Civil

M/S THAKKER SHIPPING P.LTD. vs. COMMR.OF CUSTOMS(GENERAL)

Bench: The Appellate Authority”. 3. The Facts Leading To The Present Appeal Are These. A Container Was Intercepted By M & P Wing Of Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai On 11.01.2001. It Was Found To Contain Assorted Electrical & Electronic Goods Of Foreign Origin. The Said Goods Were Imported By M/S Qureshi International & The Cargo Was Cleared From Nhava Sheva. The Clearance Of The Goods Was Handled By M/S Thakker Shipping P. Ltd., The

condoning the delay by showing sufficient cause after the prescribed period, there was complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In conclusion this Court held that Page 10 JUDGMENT 10 the time limit prescribed under Section 35-H(1

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS vs. STANDARD MOTOR PRODUCTS, ETC

condonation of delay, but that was refused, and the appeals were dismissed as time-barred. The appellant then preferred appeals against the orders of dismissal to the Tribunal under Section 33 of the Act, and the Tribunal dismissed them on the ground that the orders of the Assist- ant Commissioner were in substance passed under Section

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,SIMLA vs. M/S GREEN WORLD CORPORATION

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

condoning the delay admitted the appeal without formulating the substantial questions of law as required under Section 260A. 10 By reason of an order dated 9.1.2006, the High Court entertained the appeal, stating: “Learned Counsel for the appellant states that though CIT, Shimla has locus-standi to file the present appeal, but as an abundant caution appeal may also

COMMR.OF CUSTOMS,CENTRAL EXERCISE,NOIDA vs. M/S PUNJAB FIBRES LTD.,NOIDA

The appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances,

1. In all these appeals the question that falls for consideration is whether the High Court has power to condone the delay in presentation of the reference under Section

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT vs. SHATRUSHAILYA DIGVIJAYSINGH JADEJA

condonation of delay were filed and pending. On the question of law, learned counsel invited our attention to section 95(i)(c) and submitted that the scheme was a Code by itself; that the object of the scheme was to recover the taxes locked in the pending litigation and for the purposes of the applicability of the scheme, appeals, references

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE,TIRUCHIRAPALLI vs. M/S. DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD

condone delay in appropriate cases is affected in any manner by this clarification made by us. (xii) Section 11-B does provide for the purchaser making the claim for refund provided he is able to establish that he has not passed on the burden to another person. It, therefore, cannot be said that Section 11-B is a device

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX-I,NEW DELHI vs. VATIKA TOWNSHIP P.LTD

Appeals of the assessees are allowed deleting the surcharge levied by the

Delay condoned. The question which fell for consideration before the High Court was as to whether the proviso appended to Section 113 of the Income Tax Act is clarificatory and/or curative in nature. The said provision had come into force with effect from 01.06.2002. It reads as under: “Provided that the tax chargeable under this section shall be increased

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

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted. 2. The appeals before us raise an important question as to the constitutional validity of the third proviso to Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14 vs. JASJIT SINGH

The appeals are dismissed in terms of signed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

Delay condoned in SLP(C) Dy. No. 30718 of 2023 and all connected petitions. 2. Special leave granted. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeals were heard. 3. In this batch of appeals the revenue questions four sets of orders of the Delhi High Court, dismissing its appeals under 1 Digitally signed by NEETA SAPRA

M/S DALMIA POWER LTD. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA

condonation of delay under Section 6 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with CBDT Circular No. 9/2015 dated 09.06.2015.  2.13 On   28.12.2018,   the   Department   passed   an Assessment Order u/S. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, stating that in view of the Scheme of Arrangement and Amalgamation, the notice issued under Section

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S HONGO INDIA(P) LTD

condone the delay as there is no provision in the 1944 Act to exclude impliedly or expressly the application of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue contended that in this case there was a delay in making the Reference Application under Section 35H(1

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act 19616. 2 The Revenue is in appeal. 3 Against the decision of the High Court for AY 2011-12, a Special Leave Petition7 was dismissed by a two judge Bench of this Court on 16 July 2018 with the following observations: “Heard learned counsel for the parties. Delay condoned. In view