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

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

25. It would be our duty to point out at this stage that another Division Bench in the case of CIT v. Sanjiv Bhatara2, has followed the aforesaid judgment by giving same reasons in support. 26. It is not necessary to take note of the arguments advanced by the learned ASG for the Department and various counsel who appeared

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

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

iii. Changes to Section 17 w.e.f. 11.04.2011 – the assessment of bill(s) of entry and shipping bill(s) ................................................................................ 78 Review Petition No. 400 of 2021 Page 9 of 161 iv. Scheme of Sections 17 and 28 of the Act, 1962 ..................................... 90 v. Use of the article ‘the’ in the expression “the proper officer” ................. 93 vi. DRI officers as proper officers

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

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

10 of the quantum of escaped income. Following the same, CIT(A) enhanced the assessment by fixing the unexplained income at Rs.1,44,02,560.00 for the assessment years 1987-88 to 1993-94 which was thereafter apportioned in respect of the relevant three assessment years. The pro-rata allotment of escaped income for the three assessment years as directed

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

The appeals are allowed

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

25 of 112 explanation in Section 44BB states that a plant includes ships, aircrafts, vehicles, drilling units, scientific apparatus and equipment, used for the purposes of such business and the expression “minerals oil” includes petroleum and natural gas. 7.2 Section 139 speaks of filing of return of income. Section 143 deals with ‘assessment’ while Section 144 deals with ‘best judgment

M/S.JASWAL NECO LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, VISAKHAPATNAM

reassess, collect and enforce payment of the Central sales tax payable by a dealer as if it was payable under the State Act; this is the first part of Section 9(2). By the second part thereof, these authorities are empowered to exercise the powers they have under the State Act and the provisions of the State Act, including provisions

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

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

10 intention of the Legislature since the inception of   the   Income­tax   Act,   1961,   that   no   deduction shall   be   made   in   respect   of   any   expenditure incurred   by   the   assessee   in   relation   to   income which does not form part of the total income under the   Income­tax   Act.   The   proposed   amendment   will take effect retrospectively from 1st April, 1962 and   will   accordingly,   apply

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

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

reassessment of income for the aforesaid assessment years. The Assessing Officer also passed a penalty order dated 14.06.2000 levying a penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act after being satisfied that the appellant had concealed its income as regards lease rental. 2.3. While various proceedings, such as an appeal before the CIT (A) for the assessment year

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

25 of 59 33. Section 139(1) inter alia provides that every person shall, on or before the due date, furnish a return of his income during the previous year, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed. Sub-section (4) of Section 139 provides that

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL), N. DELHI vs. GUJARAT PERSTORP ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeals are allowed

reassessment under Chapter Heading 4911. According to him, at any rate, the entire value for the consignment which came under Air Way Bill was of Rs. 63.11 lacs (approx) as per Invoice Nos. 1836-02A and 1836-92B dated December 22, 1993 which could not be taken as value of drawings for the reason that the consideration

SHABINA ABRAHAM vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

10. Given the aforesaid decision of the Bombay High Court, the legislature was quick to amend the Income Tax Act, 1922 by inserting Section 24B which reads as follows:- Section 24B : Tax of deceased person payable by representative- (1) Where a person dies, his executor, administrator or other legal representative shall be liable to pay out of the estate

INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. VIKRAM SUJITKUMAR BHATIA

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

reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of Section 153A. It also further provided that in case of such other person, the reference to the date of initiation of the search under Section 132 or making of requisition under Section 132-A in the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 153-A shall

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

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

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

25 of 67 erstwhile Income Tax Act, 1922, Section 4A defined residence in taxable territories. Section 6 of the Act deals with residence in India and the relevant provision would be Section 6(3) pre-amendment in 2017 and post- amendment 2017 w.e.f. 01.04.2017. He has taken us through the relevant provisions under the Income Tax Act, 1922 (Section

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

iii), excess depreciation on gas cylinders and goods containers. Although the assessee’s return in respect of lease equalization was not the subject matter of the reassessment proceedings, the Commissioner of Income Tax purported to invoke his revisional jurisdiction in terms of Section 263 of the Act and by an order dated 29.03.2004 held as under: "5. In short, from

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

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,SIMLA vs. M/S GREEN WORLD CORPORATION

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

iii. The amount of profit shown from the Parwanoo having been holding disproportionate to the investment made, the High Court was correct in passing the impugned judgment. iv. In any event, the Assessee cannot be said to have been prejudiced in any manner whatsoever by the order of the High Court, as the appeal although was improperly filed

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.

25,000/-, resulting in tax demand of Rs.20,23,279/-, inclusive of interest levied. Later, a show- cause notice for prosecution under Section 276CC was issued to A-3 on 7.8.1996. A-3 filed replies on 24.11.1996 and 24.3.1997. The Commissioner of Income Tax accorded sanction for prosecution on 4.8.1997. 8. We may incidentally also point out, the final

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

reassessment of Income under the Act or its predecessor statute, the Essential Commodities Act, 1955; the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 as well as in respect of action of the Revenue in the matter of 9 (2000) 242 ITR 302 (Del.) 10 (2003) 260 ITR 80 (SC) 11 (2005) 278 ITR 36 (Bom.) 12 (2021) 433 ITR 203 (Telangana