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

SASI ENTERPRISES vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Egmore), Chennai, For The Willful & Deliberate Failure To File Returns For The Assessment Years 1991-92, 1992-93 & Hence Committing Offences Punishable Under Section 276 Cc Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short “The Act”). Complaints Were Filed On 21.8.1997 After Getting The Sanction From The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Ii, Chennai Under Section 279(1) Of The Income Tax Act. Appellants Filed Two Discharge Petitions Under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C., Which Were Dismissed By The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vide Order Dated 14.6.2006. Appellants Preferred Crl. R.C. Nos.781 To 786 Of 2006 Before The High Court Of Madras Which Were Dismissed By The High Court Vide Its Common Order Dated 2.12.2006, Which Are The Subject Matters Of These Appeals.

carried forward under sub-section (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub- section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, or sub- section (3) of section 74A, he may furnish, within the time allowed under sub-section (1), a return of loss in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner

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

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

losses brought forward from the previous year under Chapter VI or unabsorbed depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32 shall not be set off against the undisclosed income determined in the block assessment under this Chapter, but may be carried forward for being set off in the regular assessments. Civil Appeal No.________ of 2014 & connected matters Page

BRIJ LAL vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

carry forward loss, deduction, allowance or relief claimed in the return, and as a result of which, - (i)if any tax or interest is found due, an intimation shall be sent to the assessee specifying the sum so payable, and such intimation shall be deemed to be a notice of 5 demand issued under section 156 and all the provisions

SHITAL FIBERS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the IT Act were initiated in respect of the said Assessment Year by the order dated 10th December 2008 by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Range II, Jalandhar. Reliance was placed by the Revenue on the decision of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘ITAT’), Chennai (Special Bench) in the case of ACIT

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

carrying forward and to set off losses it is treated as one filed within sub-section (1) or (2) cannot be pressed into service to claim it to be actually one such, though it is factually and really not by extending it beyond its legitimate purpose. 22. Whether there was wilful failure to furnish the return is a matter which

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

The appeals are allowed

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

loss for AY 2018-19. On 23.11.2020, the first notices under Section 142(1) were issued to them, which were replied to. Several other notices under Section 142(1) were issued and replies given before, finally, on 23.09.2021 a Show Cause Notice was issued in both cases and draft assessment orders under Section 144C passed on 28.09.2021. As per Section

M/S. ROTORK CONTROLA INDIA (P) LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in favour of the assessee with no order as to

carried the matter in appeal to the Madras High Court vide Tax Case Appeal No.163 of 2003 etc. Those appeals were for all the assessment years 1991- 92, 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95. By common judgment dated 5.2.07, the High Court held that the assessee was not entitled to deduction in respect of the provision made for warranty

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT CENTRAL vs. SAURASTHRA CEMENT & CHEM. INDUSTRIES LTD

reassessment or re-computation is : made on the assessee or any person in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under section 250, 254, 260, 262, 263 or 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this Act;... Explanation

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

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

forward not backward. As was observed in Phillips v.  Eyre6, a retrospective legislation is contrary to the general principle that legislation by which the   conduct   of   mankind   is   to   be   regulated   when introduced for the first time to deal with future acts   ought   not   to   change   the   character   of   past transactions carried on upon the faith of the then existing

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS vs. M/S CANON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

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

reassessment under Section 17 alone is qualified to become a proper officer under Section 28 for the purpose of raising demand of short levy, non-levy or erroneous refund. No other officer can be assigned the functions of the proper officer under Section 28. (ii) Secondly, the judgment was rendered in connection with officers of the Customs (Preventive), who were

MODI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MODINAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI

The appeals are allowed in the above

forward a claim for interest on this amount also, that claim was ultimately abandoned. Therefore, if we were to give the construction to section 18A as suggested by Mr. Palkhivala, then the advance tax would stand on a different footing from the payment of Rs.6 lakhs, which was paid by the assessee under the order of assessment. The scheme