VINUBHAI MOHANLAL DOBARIA vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

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

d. Whether the 2014 guidelines are mandatory or directory in nature? E. ANALYSIS i. Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 27. Chapter XXII of the Act deals with offences and prosecutions and consists of Sections 275A to 280D. Section 276CC of the Act inter-alia provides that if a person fails to furnish the return of income which

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

D G M E N T S.H. KAPADIA, J. 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

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

13 can be no debit to the reserve. Under the vertical system, “profits available for appropriation” are post-tax profits. Appropriation to reserves can be made only when there is a surplus. 5. Under Clause 7(1)(a) of Part – III of Schedule VI of Companies Act, 1956 – provision, inter alia, is to provide for depreciation, renewals or diminution

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

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

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

d) available of stock of raw, semi-finished and finished material prior to Assessment year 2000-2001. On or about 19.12.2002, AO after completing the proceeding for assessment passed an order, which reads as under: “Return declaring nil income after deduction under Section 80IB on the profit of Rs.74,79,995/- was filed on 31.10.2000 which was processed under Section

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

The appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances,

D G M E N T CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4647 OF 2007 (With Civil Appeal Nos. 4677, 4678 and 5261 of 2007) Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 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 35- H(1

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

13 of 31 Page 14 JUDGMENT With this background in mind, we reproduce the following relevant portions from the opinion of B.P. Jeeven Reddy, J.: “57. The first decision of this Court to consider the amended Section 11-B is in Union of India v. Jain Spinners Ltd (1992) 4 SCC 389 The validity of the 1991 (Amendment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14 vs. JASJIT SINGH

The appeals are dismissed in terms of signed

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

D G M E N T 1. 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

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

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 granted

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

D G M E N T R.F. Nariman, J 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 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Income Tax Act”). 3. The facts in Deputy Commissioner of Income

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

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA

D G M E N T  INDU MALHOTRA, J.   Leave granted. 1.   The issue which arises for consideration in the present Civil Appeals is whether the Department ought to have permitted the   assessee   companies   to   file   the   revised   Income   Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2016­2017 after the expiry of   the   due   date   prescribed   under   Section

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

Bench: Us.

13 SCC 639, it was held as under:- "33. Therefore, what flows from a reading of the aforementioned decisions is that in the absence of a statutory definition in precise terms; words, entries and items in taxing statutes must be construed in terms of their commercial or trade understanding, or according to their popular meaning. In other words they have

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

D G M E N T Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J 1 This appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 9 January 2018 which upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1. The Tribunal held that the assessment made in the name of Suzuki 1 “the Tribunal” Digitally signed by MANISH

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

Appeals are allowed

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

D G M E N T A.K. SIKRI, J. Leave granted. 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

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

D G M E N T ANIL R. DAVE, J. 1) 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

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ALOM EXTRUCTIONS LIMITED

condoned. Leave granted. A short question which arises for determination in this batch of civil appeals is: whether omission [deletion] of the second proviso to Section 43-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Finance Act, 2003, operated with effect from 1st April, 2004, or whether it operated retrospectively with effect from 1st April, 1988? Prior to Finance