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

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ETC. vs. M/S.AISHWARYA INDUSTRIES THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ETC

Bench: Us.

Section Note 2 to Section VI, no other classification is permissible. By consideration of the materials placed on record and also applying the 'Common Parlance Test', coconut oil packed in small sachets/containers 67 understood in the market by dealers/consumers as 'Hair Oil' is classifiable under Chapter 33, tariff item 33 05. In the case of MAIPL, 'Coconut Oil' packed

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

9 appeal arose. We shall, however, briefly refer to these decisions. 16. In Hongo India Pvt. Ltd2, the question for consideration before this Court was whether the High Court had power to condone the delay in presentation of the reference application under unamended Section 35-H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 beyond the prescribed period by applying Section

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

The appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances,

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. Above being the position, the High Court was justified in holding that there was no power for condonation of delay in filing reference application

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX 4 BENGALURU 2 vs. M/S JUPITER CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

Delay condoned. 2. This petition is at the instance of the Revenue, seeking leave to appeal against the judgement and order dated 20.02.2023 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Income Tax Appeal (ITA) No. 299 of 2019 by which the appeal filed by the Revenue against the judgement and order passed by the ITAT Bengaluru came

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

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

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

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 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

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

9. The counsel appearing for the Department submitted that the Appellants ought to have made a representation to the Board   under   Section   119(2)(b)   of   the   Income   Tax   Act   for condonation   of   delay

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

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

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

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 Pvt. Ltd] (Civil

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

9 STC 747 and that cannot be treated as a vested legal right. Correction of judicial error does not amount to deprivation of vested/substantive rights, even though a person may be deprived of an unwarranted advantage he had under the overruled decision. In cases, where the burden is not passed on, there is no prejudice; he can always

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