M/S. SINGH ENTERPRISES vs. COMMNR.OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAMSHEDPUR&ORS

Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Commissioner and the High Court were therefore justified in holding that there was no power to condone the delay after the expiry of 30 days period. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has emphasized on certain decisions, more particularly, I.T.C.\022s case (supra) to contend that the High Court and this Court

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

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

20 While considering the scheme of refund of excise duty and interest subsidy in that case, it was held that the scheme was capital in nature, despite the fact that the incentives were not available unless and until commercial production has started, and that the incentives in the form of excise duty or interest subsidy were not given

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

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

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

condonation of the said infraction, even if a return is filed in terms of sub- section (4). Accepting such a plea would mean that a person who has not filed a return within the due time as prescribed under sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 139 would get benefit by filing the return under Section 139(4) much later

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

20 and Co. v. A.V. Visvanatha Sastri (1955) 1 SCR 448, this Court struck down Section 5(4) of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947 on the ground that the procedure prescribed was substantially more prejudicial and more drastic to the assessee than the procedure contained in the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. Section

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI vs. M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER

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

Delay Condoned. Leave granted. 2. This appeal when alongwith several appeals were heard on 16.11.2016, this Court noticed that in batch of cases, four questions have arisen.   The present batch of cases of which Civil   Appeal   No.   2165   is   a   leading   case   relates   only   to Question No.2, which is to the following effect:­ “Whether   sub­section   (2)   and   sub­section

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

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

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

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

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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYD. vs. M/S. P.J. CHEMICALS LTD

In the result, we affirm the judgments of the High Courts which have

condone the delays. In the special leave petitions, we grant special leave. These are cases in which the High Courts have held that subsidies granted to industries on a percentage of the capital cost are not deductible from the "actual cost" under Section 43(1) of the Act for purpose of calculation of depreciation etc. 2. The second batch consists

M/S TOPMAN EXPORTS vs. COMMR OF INCOME TAX,MUMBAI

Delay condoned. Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions. 2. These are appeals by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution against the judgment and orders of the Bombay High Court holding that the entire amount received by an assessee on sale of the Duty Entitlement Pass Book (for short ‘the DEPB’) represents profit on transfer of DEPB

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

condoning the delay admitted the appeal without formulating the substantial questions of law as required under Section 260A. 10 By reason of an order dated 9.1.2006, the High Court entertained the appeal, stating: “Learned Counsel for the appellant states that though CIT, Shimla has locus-standi to file the present appeal, but as an abundant caution appeal may also