Search: condonation of delay

45 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 17clear

Sorted by relevance

Key Topics

Section 143(2)10 Section 11B10 Deduction8 Addition to Income8 Section 80H7 Exemption7 Section 1486 Section 276C6 Section 43(6)(b)5 Section 36(1)(vii)4 Section 1544 Depreciation4

M/S THAKKER SHIPPING P.LTD. vs. COMMR.OF CUSTOMS(GENERAL)

C.A. No.-007696-007696 - 2012Supreme Court30 Oct 2012

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

Section 108Section 129ASection 129BSection 129D(3)Section 129D(4)

delay in presentation of appeal under Section 129A is condonable by the Tribunal by virtue of sub- section (5) thereof. The Tribunal has been invested with the same power for consideration of the applications under Section 129D(4) if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting such application within prescribed period as the provisions relating

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

Appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-009496-009499 - 2019Supreme Court18 Dec 2019

Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA

Section 139Section 139(5)

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S PEPSI FOODS LTD. (NOW PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.)

C.A. No.-001106-001106 - 2021Supreme Court06 Apr 2021

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

Section 254

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

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX-I,NEW DELHI vs. VATIKA TOWNSHIP P.LTD

Appeals of the assessees are allowed deleting the surcharge levied by the

C.A. No.-008750-008750 - 2014Supreme Court15 Sept 2014

Section 113Section 132Section 154Section 158B

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

C.A. No.-003600-003600 - 2006Supreme Court02 Sept 2015

Section 11BSection 35G(3)

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

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

The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed

C.A. No.-006513-006514 - 2012Supreme Court07 Dec 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

Section 3Section 3(13)

17 only for repayment of term loans.” After discussing the judgment in Sahney Steel case, this Court then held: “The importance of the judgment of this Court in Sahney Steel case lies in the fact that it has discussed and analysed the entire case law and it has laid down the basic test to the applied in judging the character

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

C.A. No.-005114-005114 - 2007Supreme Court25 Mar 2009

Section 133ASection 192(1)Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(ii)

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

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

C.A. No.-003496-003497 - 2018Supreme Court03 Apr 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

Section 194HSection 201(1)

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 Date

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

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

C.A. No.-007655-007656 - 2021Supreme Court11 Dec 2021

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

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-001234-001234 - 2012Supreme Court18 Oct 2016

Section 260Section 583(4)(a)

Delay condoned in Special Leave Petition (C) No.....CC 9101 and 10193 of 2014. 2) Leave granted. 3) All these appeals (except Civil Appeal No. 1245 of 2012 and Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) No....CC Nos. 9101 and 10193 of 2014 and SLP (C) No. 14812 of 2014, which are filed by the Revenue) are preferred

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

C.A. No.-002716-002716 - 2022Supreme Court05 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 276C

Section 292B of the Act.” 17 24. A series of decisions had followed the Delhi High Court’s decision in Spice. All these were the subject of special leave petitions, which were disposed of by the following order in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Spice Enfotainment Ltd14. “Delay condoned

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

C.A. No.-006262-006262 - 2010Supreme Court16 Feb 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

Section 12Section 12ASection 154Section 2(15)Section 21Section 260

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

C.A. No.-001581-001582 - 2005Supreme Court01 Mar 2019

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

Section 80H

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

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

C.A. No.-004072-004072 - 2014Supreme Court19 Dec 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

Section 32(1)(ii)

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

VINUBHAI MOHANLAL DOBARIA vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms

C.A. No.-001977-001977 - 2025Supreme Court07 Feb 2025

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

Section 143(1)Section 276C

delayed filing of the return of income for AY 2011-12, the appellant had disclosed the commission of his first offence prior to the due date of filing return for AY 2013-14. Therefore, as the offence under Section 276CC of the Act for the AY 2013-14 was SLP (C) NO. 20519 of 2024 Page 18 of 59 committed

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

C.A. No.-002206-002206 - 2009Supreme Court08 Apr 2009

Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 37(1)Section 43(1)

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

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

C.A. No.-005409-005409 - 2019Supreme Court25 Jul 2019

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 92C

Delay condoned. In view of the order dated 02.11.2017 passed by this Court in C.I.T., New Delhi Vs. M/s. Spice Enfotainment Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 285 of 2014 etc. etc.), this special leave petition also stands dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.” 2 “SPIL” 3 “AY” 4 “MSIL

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

C.A. No.-002706-002706 - 2018Supreme Court12 Mar 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA

Section 79

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

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

C.A. No.-003506-003510 - 2009Supreme Court12 May 2009

Section 37

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

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL), N. DELHI vs. GUJARAT PERSTORP ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeals are allowed

C.A. No.-008568-008569 - 2001Supreme Court05 Aug 2005

For Respondent: M/s. Gujarat Perstorp Electronics Ltd

Section 28(1)

17 Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, since the goods are not available, I refrain from ordering confiscation. d) I impose under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 a penalty of Rs.1 crore (Rupee one crore) on M/s. Pearl Engineering Polymer Ltd., e) I impose penalty of Rs.50 lakhs (Rupees fifty lakhs) on Shri Chand Seth

Showing 1–20 of 45 · Page 1 of 3