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

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

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

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 vs. CHHABIL DASS AGARWAL

Delay condoned. 3. Leave granted. 4. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Sikkim at Gangtok in Writ Petition(C) No.44 of 2009, dated 05.10.2010. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has quashed the order of assessment passed by the Assistant CIT, Circle-I, Siliguri under

M/S TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid observations

Bench: The Assessing Officer. What The High Court Has Done Is To Require The Assessing Officer To Pass A -2-

Delay condoned. Leave granted. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. The High Court has held that the Assessing Officer had disposed the proceedings stating the penalty proceedings initiated in this case u/s 271 C read with Section

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

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

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

The appeals are allowed

Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 55. The penalties shall be paid forthwith." Being aggrieved by the Order in Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, five appeals came to be registered before CEGAT. One appeal was preferred by the Company against the decision of the Commissioner holding that the goods were liable to payment of custom duty

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) vs. STONEMAN MARBLE INDUSTRIES

Delay in SLP (C) No. 11177 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 11180 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 11181 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 11182 of 2006, SLP (C) No. 12641 of 2006 and SLP (C) No. 14991 of 2006 is condoned and Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this batch of appeals is to the orders passed by the High Court