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

Appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA

Section 139(5) and 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act r.w. Circular No.9   of   2015   issued   by   the   CBDT   to   contend   that   the 22 Appellant   ought   to   have   made   an   application   for condonation   of   delay

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 14 vs. JASJIT SINGH

The appeals are dismissed in terms of signed

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

139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN

Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. The present appeals arise from a final judgment and common order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi1 in W.P. (C) Nos. 6764, 6765 and 6766 of 2020 and are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment. 3. For the sake of clarity and systematic analysis, this judgment is divided

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

Delay 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

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

Delay condoned. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment(s) [Spice Entertainment Ltd. v. Commr. of Service Tax, (2011 SCC OnLine Del); CIT v. Dimension Apparels (P) Ltd., (2015) 370 ITR 288; CIT v. Chanakaya Exports (P) Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Del 7678; CIT v. Chanakaya

COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX III MUMBAI vs. M/S VODAFONE INDIA LTD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

Delay condoned. Leave granted. 1.1 These Civil Appeals have been filed by the Revenue, i.e. the Service Tax Department, being aggrieved by various orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (“CESTAT”, for the sake of convenience). 2. The orders passed by CESTAT in all these appeals have been in favour of the respondents-assessees. The CESTAT

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S. MADHAN AGRO INDUSTRIES (I) PVT. LTD

Bench: Us.

139) ELT 633 (T); Srikant Sachets Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE 2005 (180) ELT 401 (T); and Commissioner of Central Excise v. Essen Products (I) Ltd. 2006 (200) ELT 342 (T) etc. relied 60 upon by the Tribunal and the Board circular dated 31.08.1995 were dealing with the cases pertaining to the period prior to 01.03.2005. The Tribunal was not right

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

Bench: Us.

139) ELT 633 (T); Srikant Sachets Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE 2005 (180) ELT 401 (T); and Commissioner of Central Excise v. Essen Products (I) Ltd. 2006 (200) ELT 342 (T) etc. relied 60 upon by the Tribunal and the Board circular dated 31.08.1995 were dealing with the cases pertaining to the period prior to 01.03.2005. The Tribunal was not right