COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S HONGO INDIA(P) LTD

Bench: Enactment Of Act 49/2005), With Regard To Application For Reference, The High Court Exercises Its Advisory Jurisdiction In A Case Where The Substantial Question Of Law Of Public Importance Arise, The Said Bench Directed The Matter To Be Heard By Larger Bench. In This Way, All The Above Mentioned Matters Arising From The Judgments Of The Allahabad High Court On Identical Issue Posted Before This Bench For Determining The Question, Namely, “Whether The High Court In The Reference Application Under Section 35H (1) Of The Unamended Act, Has Power Under Section 5 Of 2

3 SCC 73, expressed doubt about the said judgment with regard to the jurisdiction of the High Court in the matter of condoning delay beyond the prescribed period under the Act. After finding that under Section

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

condone the delay caused in filing the appeal under Section 129D(3) [sic, 129D(4)] of the said Act, when

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

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOT vs. SHATRUSHAILYA DIGVIJAYSINGH JADEJA

3 of 7 9.2.1999 Rejected 31.3.2000 Delay not condoned 1986-87 Revision 26.11.98 to 8.12.1998 28/29.12.98 9.2.1999 Rejected 31.3.2000 Delay not condoned 1987-88 Revision 26.11.98 to 8.12.1998 28/29.12.98 9.2.1999 Rejected 31.3.2000 Delay not condoned 1988-89 Appeal 13/15.01.99 Last Week of Jan., 1999 15/22/23.2.99 & 5.3.99 Accepted Delay condoned 1988-89 Revision 26.11.98 to 8.12.1998 28/29.12.98 9.2.1999 Rejected 31.3.2000 Delay

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

The appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances,

3. Section 35-H was substituted by Section 128 of the Finance Act, 1999. The High Court dismissed the reference application holding that it had no power to condone the delay

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,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

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LAXMAN DAS KHANDELWAL

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Delay condoned. Leave granted. 2. These Appeals are directed against the judgment and final order dated 27.04.2018 passed by the High Court1 in Income Tax Appeal No.97 of 2018 and against the order dated 14.09.2018 in Review Petition No.1289 of 2018 arising from said Income Tax Appeal No.97 of 2018. 1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior Digitally signed

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

condone the delay. It is stated that the power in this regard is untrammeled by any statutory provision. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the orders of the Commissioner and the High Court. 6. At this juncture, it is relevant to take note of Section 35 of the Act which reads as follows: \02335. APPEALS

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE,TIRUCHIRAPALLI vs. M/S. DALMIA CEMENT (BHARAT) LTD

Section 11-B(3) [as amended by the 1991 (Amendment) Act]. This, however, does not mean that the power of the appellate authorities to condone delay

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE vs. M/S HONGO INDIA(P) LTD

condone the delay cannot be circumscribed by the provisions of Section 35. Secondly, in this case, we are concerned with the scope of Section 35H and not with Section 35 of the 1944 Act. Under Section 35H, on an application for reference, the High Court exercises its advisory jurisdiction in a case where it is of the opinion that

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

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   (3

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE vs. M/S. N.I. SYSTEMS INDIA P.LTD

Delay condoned. Facts: 2. M/s. N.I. Systems (India) Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “importer”) is a 100% subsidiary of N.I. Corporation at Austin, Texas, USA. 3. Assessee imports various products from its Holding Company and supplies the same to its customers in India. During the relevant assessment year, the assessee imported various products from their Principal. The products were

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

3 of the judgment as follows:- “The beneficiaries of the incentive scheme shall ensure that the surplus funds generated through sale of the incentive sugar are utilised for the repayment of term loans, if any, outstanding from the Central financial institutions. The sugar factories should submit utilisation certificates annually from Chartered/Cost Accountant, holding certificate of practice. Utilisation certificate in respect

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

Section 12 (A) of the Act. Since the application for registration was delayed in its filing, the appellant also made an application for condonation of delay in filing the application. 5. By order dated 13.04.1999, the CIT (Gwalior) condoned the delay and granted the registration certificate as prayed for by the appellant. In clause 3