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

10 of AS-11 such adjustment in the carrying amount of the fixed assets was not possible, particularly in the light of Section 43(1). The unamended Section 43A nowhere required as condition precedent for making necessary adjustment in the carrying amount of the fixed asset that there should be actual payment of the increased/decreased liability as a consequence

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 of the Bank and having regard to the adequacy of the paid-up capital and reserves of a non- banking financial company in relation to its deposit liabilities, declare by order in writing that the provisions

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

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 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

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

The appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances,

1) of Section 35 makes the position crystal clear that the appellate authority has no power to allow the appeal to be presented beyond the period of 30 days. The language used makes the position clear that the legislature intended the appellate authority to entertain the appeal by condoning delay only upto 30 days after the expiry of 60 days

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

10) It is a nine Judge Bench decision. Majority opinion was delivered by B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. for himself and on behalf of four other Judges. K.S. Paripoornan, J. and S.C.Sen, J. wrote their separate opinions. Hansaria, J. agreed with the conclusions and reasoning of Paripoornan, J. However, insofar as issue at hand is concerned, they concurred with the majority

M/S NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX APPEALS(41)

The appeals are dismissed

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

Delay condoned. 2. These appeals have been filed against the common judgment of Delhi High Court dated 16.02.2017 by which the Delhi High Court   has   allowed   the   writ   petitions   filed   by   the   private respondents herein.  The appeals have been filed by New Okhla Industrial   Development   Authority,   Greater   Noida   Industrial Development Authority, Commissioner of Income Tax as well as Income

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 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

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

condoned. Leave granted. 2. The appeals before us raise an important question as to the constitutional validity of the third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Income Tax Act”). 3. The facts in Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. v. M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. [now Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd] (Civil

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

10 the assessing officer in the draft assessment order in accordance with Section 144C(1) which was then challenged by the assessee before the DRP under Section 144C(2). Since the names of both the amalgamated and amalgamating companies were mentioned in the draft assessment order and final assessment order, there is no jurisdictional defect; (viii) In view the decision

THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME TAX) vs. TIGER GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL II HOLDINGS

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

10:13:19 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 264 OF 2026 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5987 OF 2025] THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (INCOME TAX) AND OTHERS .... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS TIGER GLOBAL INTERNATIONAL III HOLDINGS .... RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T R. MAHADEVAN, J. 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave

M/S. VIJAY INDUSTRIES vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed

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

Delay condoned. 2) In all these appeals issue relates to the interpretation that is to be accorded to the provisions of Section 80HH of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). Section 80HH and other related provisions, as it existed at the relevant time, are to be taken note of. since we are concerned with

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ETC. vs. M/S.AISHWARYA INDUSTRIES THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ETC

Bench: Us.

10. By the 2004 amendment, there has been realignment of certain goods including the impugned goods. For proper appreciation, we may usefully refer to comparative chart of relevant old legal provisions and the new legal provisions after amendment as under:- Sl. No. Old Legal Provision New Legal Provision 1. Section Note to Section VI Note 2: Goods

M/S. SINGH ENTERPRISES vs. COMMNR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAMSHEDPUR&ORS

1) of Section 35 makes the position crystal clear that the appellate authority has no power to allow the appeal to be presented beyond the period of 30 days. The language used makes the position clear that the legislature intended the appellate authority to entertain the appeal by condoning delay only upto 30 days after the expiry of 60 days