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

condonation of delay, and that, in consequence, an order passed thereon cannot be held to be passed in appeal so as to fall within section 31 is right. Now, a right of appeal is a substantive right, and is a creature of the statute. Section 30(1) confers on the assessee a right of appeal against certain orders

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

12. Section 129D(4) makes it clear that where an application is made by the Commissioner to the Tribunal in pursuance of an order under sub-section (1) within a prescribed period from the date of communication of that order, such application shall be heard by the Tribunal as if it was an appeal made against the decision or order

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

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

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

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

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

condonation of delay. Treating date of filing of complaint or date of initiation of proceedings as the relevant date for computing limitation under Section 468 of the Code 27 is supported by the legal maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit which means that the act of court shall prejudice no man. It bears repetition to state that the court's inaction

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

Section 12 (A) of the Act. Since the application for registration was delayed in its filing, the appellant also made an application for condonation

ADDL. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA & ANR. vs. M/S. BEST & CO

In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the High

condone the delay and dismissed the appeal. The appellant then filed an application for review and it was then that he for the first time invoked sub-ss. 2 and 3 of S. 12 contending that the time taken in obtaining the copy of the order and of the judgment should be excluded. The Court upheld the contention

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

12 new industrial undertakings which commenced production on or after 01.01.1969 with investment capital not exceeding Rs. 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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER,MUMBAI vs. VENKATESH PREMISES COOP.STY.LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA

Delay condoned.  Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.  2. A common question of law arises for consideration in this batch   of   appeals,   whether   certain   receipts   by   co­operative societies,   from   its   members   i.e.   non­occupancy   charges, transfer charges, common amenity fund charges and certain other   charges,   are   exempt   from   income   tax   based   on   the doctrine of mutuality.  The challenge

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

THE DIR. PRASAR BHARATI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTH

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 20.11.2009 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Income Tax Appeal No.27 of 2009 and Income Tax Appeal No.62 of 2009 whereby the High Court allowed the appeals preferred by the respondent herein and 1 Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPN)N.DELHI vs. RAUNAQ EDUCATION FOUNDATION

The appeal is dismissed with

Bench: The Income Tax Commissioner. The Income Tax Commissioner Was Pleased To Dismiss The Appeal By An Order Dated 29Th May, 2005. Being Aggrieved By The Said Order Of Dismissal, The Respondent-Assessee Had Filed An Appeal Before The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “F” At New Delhi. The Said Appeal, Being Ita No.2657/Del/2006, Was Allowed By An Order Dated 09Th March, 2007. Being Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Revenue Had Filed Ita No.150 Of 2008 Before The High Court Of Delhi At 2

Delay condoned. 2) Leave granted. 3) Being aggrieved by an order passed in ITA No.150 of 2008 by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, the Revenue has filed this appeal. 4) The facts giving rise to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under: 1 Page 2 JUDGMENT 5) The respondent-assessee is a trust

M/S. MODIPON FIBRE COMPANY vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT

Delay condoned. 2. These cross appeals are filed by M/s Modipon Fibre Company and the Department under Section 35L of Central Excise Act, 1944 against order dated 3.7.2001 passed by the Customs Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal ("CEGAT") holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction in respect of turnover tax ("TOT") only

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX 4 BENGALURU 2 vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

Delay condoned. 2. This petition is at the instance of the Revenue, seeking leave to appeal against the judgement and order dated 20.02.2023 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Income Tax Appeal (ITA) No. 299 of 2019 by which the appeal filed by the Revenue against the judgement and order passed by the ITAT Bengaluru came