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

8. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) as also the Tribunal being creatures of Statute are vested with jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the permissible period provided under the Statute. The period upto which the prayer for condonation can be accepted is statutorily provided. It was submitted that the logic of Section

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

RAJA MECHANICAL CO.(P) LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-I

Appeal is dismissed on

Bench: The Adjudicating Authority/Assessing Authority. However, The Said Declaration Was Not Filed Within The Time Prescribed Under The ‘Central Excise Act, 1944 (For Short ‘The Act’) & The Rules Framed Thereunder. Accordingly, The Adjudicating Authority Had Issued A Show Cause Notice Dated 11.10.1995 To The Assessee, Inter Alia, Directing It To Show Cause As To Why The Modvat Credit To The Tune Of Rs.1,47,000/-, Availed By It, Should Not Be Disallowed & Recovered Under Rule 57G Of The Central Excise Rules, 1944 (For Short ‘The Rules’) Read With Section 11A Of The Act And, Further Directed It To Show Cause As To Why Penalty Under Rule 173Q Of The Rules Should Not Be Imposed. Thereafter, A Corrigendum Dated 23.4.1997 To The Show Cause Notice Was Issued To The Assessee, Inter Alia, Directing It To Show Cause To The Assistant 2

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 explaining the delay in filing the appeal. 6. The first appellate authority, being of the opinion that it has no powers to condone the delay beyond the prescribed period, has rejected the appeal vide its Order dated 1.3.2000. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee had carried the matter by way of Second Appeal

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

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

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

The appeals are disposed of in the above terms

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

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

8 of an industry; (ii) For the purpose of supplementing the profits of an industry. 10.1 To ascertain whether in a particular case the subsidy in question fall under the category (I) or (ii) one has to carefully examine the form as well as substance of the impugned scheme. We have done that exercise, and on close examination undisputedly

M/S D. N. SINGH THROUGH PARTNER DUDHESHWAR NATH SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. A. THE FACTS 3. The appellant-assessee carried on business as carriage contractor for bitumen loaded from oil companies namely HPCL, IOCL and BPCL from Haldia. The goods were to be delivered to various divisions of the Road Construction Department of the Government of Bihar. According to the appellant, it has been in the business

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

Delay 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

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

Delay condoned. 3. This civil appeal under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short “the Act”) is directed against order dated 1 2nd February 2005, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”), whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant herein has been dismissed, confirming the levy of additional customs duty

VATSALA SHENOY vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,DIBRUGARH vs. DOOM DOOMA INDIA LTD

Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. This batch of civil appeals is directed against judgments dated 22.11.06 and 8.1.07 of the High Court of Guwahati, Assam, in appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of assessment years 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991- 92. 4. What is the meaning of the expression “depreciation

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