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

13. From the plain language of Section 129D(4), it is clear that Section 129A has been incorporated in Section 129D. For the sake of brevity, instead of repeating what has been provided in Section 129A as regards the appeals to the Tribunal, it has been provided that the applications made by the Commissioner under Section 129D(4) shall

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

13-12-1947, and after undergoing several adjournments, it was actually heard on 1-10-1948. For the year 1946-1947, the Income-tax Officer assessed the income of the firm at Rs. 1,09,883, and on 29-9-1947 a notice of demand was served on it for Rs. 51,313-14-0 on account of income

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

The appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances,

10. In Vinod Gurudas Raikar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors. (1991 (4) SCC 333) this Court considered the question regarding condonation of delay. "6. Even independent of the General Clauses Act, it is firmly established that unless a new statute expressly or by necessary implication says so, it will not be presumed that it deprives a person

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-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

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

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

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

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

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA

13 for   deduction   of   provisions   written   back   by   DPL previously disallowed in the hands of DCB Power pertaining   to   Amalgamating   Undertaking   2   under the   Income     Tax   Act,   credit   of   tax   under   Section 115JB read with Section 115JAA of the Income Tax Act, credit of tax under Section 115JB read with Section 115 JAA of the Income Tax Act, credit

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

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

13 to and distinguished. What is important for our purpose is the fact that in para 18 of that judgment, the test of whether the receipt of subsidy is capital or revenue is stated as follows:- “If any subsidy is given, the character of the subsidy in the hands of the recipient - whether revenue or capital - will have

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

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

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

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

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

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

M/S. CHAUDHARY SHIP BREAKERS vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,AHMEDABAD

The appeal is allowed; the impugned order is

Bench: Us, Imported An Old Vessel For Demolition Purpose Under Memorandum Of Agreement (For Short “Moa”) Dated 19Th November 1997 With Standard Marine Trading Inc., New York On “As Is Where Is” Basis. As Per The Said Moa, The Total Purchase Price Of The Vessel Was Agreed At Us $ 992887.20 At The Rate Of Us $ 172 Per Long Ton. The Light Displacement Tonnage (Ldt) Of The Vessel Was Shown At 5772.6 Ldt. As Per Clause 12(B) Of The Moa, The Buyer Was Given An Option To Seek Proportionate Reduction In 2

Delay condoned. 3. This civil appeal under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short “the Act”) is directed against order dated 1 2nd February 2005, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”), whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant herein has been dismissed, confirming the levy of additional customs duty

M/S. ROTORK CONTROLA INDIA (P) LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in favour of the assessee with no order as to

Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. FACTS IN THE LEAD MATTER Civil Appeal Nos. of 2009 – Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.14178-14182 of 2007 – M/s. Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai . 3. In these civil appeals filed by the assessee we are concerned with the assessment years