PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 3 vs. ABHISAR BUILDWELL P. LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

income declared in the returns; and iv) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition

M/S. MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS, KOTTAYAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM

Bench: This Court & On Leave Being Granted, Civil Appeals Have Been Registered. 3.

addition of Rs.1,50,000.00 was made to the total income of the assessee vide the assessment order dated 29.01.2022 passed under Section 143 (3) of the Act. 10. For the assessment year 1992-1993 also, the assessee filed the return of income on 07.12.1992 showing a loss of Rs.10,50,000.00. However, a revised return was filed subsequently

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,CHENNAI vs. M/S ALAGENDRAN FINANCE LTD

addition to that item or items which have led to the issuance of notice under Section 148 and where ressessment is made under Section 147 in respect of income which has escaped tax, the Income Tax Officer’s jurisdiction is confined to only such income which has escaped tax or has been under-assessed and does not extend to revising

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

additional income tax at the rate of 20% on the distributed income”. For the purpose of considering whether there is any such appellate remedy, we must note the concerned Sections in the Act dealing with appellate remedy and provisions touching upon exercise of such right of appeal. Sections 246(1) and 246A(1) being relevant for the present purposes

INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. VIKRAM SUJITKUMAR BHATIA

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

reassess total income of such other person of such assessment year in the manner provided in Section 153-A.” 4.1 It is submitted by Shri Nataraj, learned ASG that the amendment in Section 153C was necessitated in view of the observation of the Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS PVT.LTD

The appeal is allowed without

Additionally, section 148 as presently stands is differently couched in language from what was earlier the position. Prior to the substitution by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, the provision read as follows: \023148. Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment.\027(1) Before making the assessment, reassessment

MANSAROVAR COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Additional Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the Revenue. He has taken us through the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order, findings of the CIT(A) vide order dated 30th March, 2001, findings recorded by the ITAT vide order dated 8th January, 2002 and the findings recorded by the High Court including the findings

NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO

addition, it was claimed that the assessing officer had no valid reasons to 6 7 believe that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment. According to the assessee the assessment officer had accepted the   genuineness   of   the   transaction   wherein   NNPLC,   the subsidiary,   had   issued   convertible   bonds   which   had   been subscribed by many entities.   It was urged that the assessing

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHELF DRILLING RON TAPPMEYER LIMITED

The appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

Additional Solicitor General further submitted that in the impugned orders of the Bombay High Court which have followed the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd., 2022 SCC Online Madras 8777 (“Roca Bathroom Products”) are wholly incorrect inasmuch as the High Courts have failed to appreciate

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX-I,NEW DELHI vs. VATIKA TOWNSHIP P.LTD

Appeals of the assessees are allowed deleting the surcharge levied by the

addition to the regular assessment in respect of each previous year included in the block period; (b) the total undisclosed income relating to the block period shall not include the income assessed in any regular assessment as income of such block period; (c) the income assessed in this Chapter shall not be included in the regular assessment of any previous

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) CIRCLE 1(2) vs. M/S M.R. SHAH LOGISTICS PVT. LTD

Appeal is allowed in these terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

reassessment. 4. The “reasons to believe” which were the basis for re-opening the assessment, recorded that search proceedings were conducted in the M.R. Shah group and Champalal group of companies on 20.09.2016 and that during the course of previous searches in the case of Shirish Chandrakant Shah, an accommodation entry provider in Mumbai, it was observed that huge amounts

PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) vs. LALJIBHAI KANJIBHAI MANDALIA

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for the Revenue argued that the High Court has completely misdirected itself in quashing the authorization as the jurisdiction of the High Court while exercising judicial review is very limited. It was contended that the High Court erred in law in finding that clauses (b) and (c) of Section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI vs. M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

addition to income not includable in total income was for the   first   time   prescribed   by   Rule   8D   as   was   envisaged   in Section 14A sub­section (2) and sub­section (3). It is also relevant   to   notice   that   Constitution   Bench   in  the Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd., has also referred to and relied the CBDT circular to find

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LAXMAN DAS KHANDELWAL

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Income Tax (Appeal) deleted an amount of Rs.7,48,463/- holding that jewellery found in locker weighing 686.4 gms stood explained in view of circular No.1916 and further deleted the addition of Rs.29,23,98,117/- out of Rs.29,53,52,631/- holding that the correct approach would be to apply the peak formula to determine in such transaction which

PLASTIBLENDS INDIA LIMITED THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR vs. ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 8(2) MUMBAI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI

reassessment proceedings and passed an assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 computing the gross total income at Rs.34,15,583/-. Though, the assessee had disclaimed deduction in respect of depreciation, the AO allowed deduction on this account as well in respect of the same in the sum of Rs.2,13,89,379/- while computing the profit

SHABINA ABRAHAM vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

reassessment or recomputation under section 147) of the income of the deceased and for the purpose of levying any sum in the hands of the legal representative in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1),— (a) any proceeding taken against the deceased before his death shall be deemed to have been taken against the legal representative

COMMR. OF INCOME TAX vs. PARMESHWARI DEVI SULTANIA

additional income of Rs. 3,50,000/- in his name and the same amount in the name of his brother on account of undisclosed investment in acquisition of gold ornaments. During the course of investigation, Babulal also gave written submission, Regarding gold ornaments, his stand now was that gold ornaments weighing 2128 gms. belonged to Mani Devi

MANISH MAHESHWARI vs. ASSTT.COMMNR.OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed

reassessment" in section 132B shall be construed as references to "block assessment". "158BD. Undisclosed income of any other person \026 Where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any undisclosed income belongs to any person, other than the person with respect to whom search was made under section 132 or whose books of account or other documents or any assets were