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

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

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

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,NEW DELHI vs. M/S ELI LILLY & COMPANY (INDIA) P.LTD

Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. In this batch of civil appeals, the question which arises for determination is – whether TDS provisions in Chapter XVII-B, which are in the nature of machinery provisions to enable collection and recovery of taxes, are independent of the charging provisions which determines the assessability of income chargeable under the head “Salaries

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

Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Commissioner and the High Court were therefore justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay after the expiry of 30 days period. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has emphasized on certain decisions, more particularly, I.T.C.\022s case (supra) to contend that the High Court and this Court

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

RAJA MECHANICAL CO.(P) LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-I

Appeal is dismissed on

Bench: The Adjudicating Authority/Assessing Authority. However, The Said Declaration Was Not Filed Within The Time Prescribed Under The ‘Central Excise Act, 1944 (For Short ‘The Act’) & The Rules Framed Thereunder. Accordingly, The Adjudicating Authority Had Issued A Show Cause Notice Dated 11.10.1995 To The Assessee, Inter Alia, Directing It To Show Cause As To Why The Modvat Credit To The Tune Of Rs.1,47,000/-, Availed By It, Should Not Be Disallowed & Recovered Under Rule 57G Of The Central Excise Rules, 1944 (For Short ‘The Rules’) Read With Section 11A Of The Act And, Further Directed It To Show Cause As To Why Penalty Under Rule 173Q Of The Rules Should Not Be Imposed. Thereafter, A Corrigendum Dated 23.4.1997 To The Show Cause Notice Was Issued To The Assessee, Inter Alia, Directing It To Show Cause To The Assistant 2

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 explaining the delay in filing the appeal. 6. The first appellate authority, being of the opinion that it has no powers to condone the delay beyond the prescribed period, has rejected the appeal vide its Order dated 1.3.2000. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee had carried the matter by way of Second Appeal

INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (GWALIOR) M.P. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GWALIOR M.P

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

condoned the delay and granted the registration certificate as prayed for by the appellant. In clause 3 of the registration certificate, it was mentioned that the certificate is granted without prejudice to the examination on merits of the claim of exemption after the return is filed. 6. On 27.11.2000, the CIT issued a show cause notice to the appellant stating

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 2 vs. M/S MAHAGUN REALTORS (P) LTD

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

10. Section 481 of the Companies Act provides for dissolution of the company. The Company Judge in the High Court can order dissolution of a company on the grounds stated therein. The effect of the dissolution is that the company no more survives. The dissolution puts an end to the existence of the company. It is held in M.H. Smith

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

5-P dated 9.10.1967 issued by CBDT. One more point needs to be mentioned. Section 43A (unamended) corresponds to para 10 of AS-11 similarly providing for adjustment in the carrying cost of fixed assets acquired in foreign currency, due to foreign exchange fluctuation at each balance sheet date. The relevant para reads as follows: “10. Exchange differences arising

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

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, KOLHAPUR vs. M/S CHAPHALKAR BROTHERS PUNE

The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

5 crores. The incentives were to be allowed for a period of five years from the date of commencement of production. Concession was also available for subsequent expansion of 50% and above. The incentives were in the form of, inter alia, refund of sale tax on raw materials, machinery and finished goods. This Court held, on the facts of that

THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF COOPERATION FOOD AND CONSUMER PROTECTION vs. A. KINGSTON DAVID

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

Bench: The High Court. The Review Petition Was Dismissed On 31 January 2019. The Special Leave Petitions Were Filed On 28 March 2019. Hence, Sufficient Cause For Condoning The Delay Has Been Shown. The Delay In Filing The Special Leave Petitions Is Condoned. 2 Leave Granted. Digitally Signed By Chetan Kumar Date: 2021.12.16 16:29:46 Ist Reason: Signature Not Verified

delay in filing the Special Leave Petitions is condoned. 2 Leave granted. Digitally signed by Chetan Kumar Date: 2021.12.16 16:29:46 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified CA 7655-56/2021 2 3 These appeals arise from a judgment of a Division Bench at the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dated 8 December 2016, and the judgment dated

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYD. vs. M/S. P.J. CHEMICALS LTD

In the result, we affirm the judgments of the High Courts which have

condone the delays. In the special leave petitions, we grant special leave. These are cases in which the High Courts have held that subsidies granted to industries on a percentage of the capital cost are not deductible from the "actual cost" under Section 43(1) of the Act for purpose of calculation of depreciation etc. 2. The second batch consists

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