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

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

1) to (7) have been mutatis mutandis made applicable, with due alteration wherever necessary, to the applications under Section 129D(4). 13. From the plain language of Section 129D(4), it is clear that Section 129A has been incorporated in Section 129D. For the sake of brevity, instead of repeating what has been provided in Section 129A as regards

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, 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

M/S. SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

condone any delay in making such report. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Central Government may, on the recommendation of the Bank and having regard to the adequacy of the paid-up capital and reserves of a non- banking financial company in relation to its deposit liabilities, declare by order in writing that the provisions

M/S. MODIPON FIBRE COMPANY vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT

Delay condoned. 2. These cross appeals are filed by M/s Modipon Fibre Company and the Department under Section 35L of Central Excise Act, 1944 against order dated 3.7.2001 passed by the Customs Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal ("CEGAT") holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction in respect of turnover tax ("TOT") only

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

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

The appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances,

1) of Section 35 makes the position crystal clear that the appellate authority has no power to allow the appeal to be presented beyond the period of 30 days. The language used makes the position clear that the legislature intended the appellate authority to entertain the appeal by condoning delay only upto 30 days after the expiry of 60 days

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

4 of 7 Delay not condoned 1990-91 Appeal 13/15.01.99 Last Week of Jan., 1999 15/22/23.2.99 & 5.3.99 Accepted Delay condoned 1990-91 Revision 26.11.98 to 8.12.1998 28/29.12.98 9.2.1999 Rejected 31.3.2000 Delay not condoned 1991-92 Appeal 13/15.01.99 Last Week of Jan., 1999 15/22/23.2.99 & 5.3.99 Accepted Delay condoned 1991-92 Revision 26.11.98 to 8.12.1998 28/29.12.98 9.2.1999 Rejected 31.3.2000 Delay not condoned

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

4 SCC 389 The validity of the 1991 (Amendment) Act was, however, neither raised nor considered by the court. The impugned orders of the High Court, made before the coming into force of the 1991 (Amendment) Act, directing refund of the excess duty collected to the manufacturers, this Court held, would defeat the provisions of amended Section 11-B which

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

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

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

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted. 2. The appeals before us raise an important question as to the constitutional validity of the third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Income Tax Act”). 3. The facts in Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. v. M/s Pepsi Foods Ltd. [now Pepsico India Holdings

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14 vs. JASJIT SINGH

The appeals are dismissed in terms of signed

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

Delay condoned in SLP(C) Dy. No. 30718 of 2023 and all connected petitions. 2. Special leave granted. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeals were heard. 3. In this batch of appeals the revenue questions four sets of orders of the Delhi High Court, dismissing its appeals under 1 Digitally signed by NEETA SAPRA

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

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act 19616. 2 The Revenue is in appeal. 3 Against the decision of the High Court for AY 2011-12, a Special Leave Petition7 was dismissed by a two judge Bench of this Court on 16 July 2018 with the following observations: “Heard learned counsel for the parties. Delay condoned. In view

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

M/S. CHAUDHARY SHIP BREAKERS vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE,AHMEDABAD

The appeal is allowed; the impugned order is

Bench: Us, Imported An Old Vessel For Demolition Purpose Under Memorandum Of Agreement (For Short “Moa”) Dated 19Th November 1997 With Standard Marine Trading Inc., New York On “As Is Where Is” Basis. As Per The Said Moa, The Total Purchase Price Of The Vessel Was Agreed At Us $ 992887.20 At The Rate Of Us $ 172 Per Long Ton. The Light Displacement Tonnage (Ldt) Of The Vessel Was Shown At 5772.6 Ldt. As Per Clause 12(B) Of The Moa, The Buyer Was Given An Option To Seek Proportionate Reduction In 2

4 of 2005 1. In the absence of any resistance, both the applications are allowed and the additional documents are taken on record. Applications stand disposed of. 2. Delay condoned. 3. This civil appeal under Section