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

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

37. According to the assessee, prior to 01.06.2002, the position was ambiguous as it was not clear even to the Department as to which year's FA would be applicable. To clear this doubt precisely, the proviso has been inserted in Section 113 by which it is indicated that FA of the year in which the search was initiated would

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 years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to Rs. 50,000 or more for that year. 31. At this stage, we deem it necessary to expound on the meaning of disclosure. As per the P. Ramanatha Aiyar, Advanced

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

The appeals are allowed

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

37 of 112 Commissioner or Commissioner under sub-section (3) of section 245R; or (ix) the period commencing from the date on which an application is made before the Authority for Advance Rulings or before the Board for Advance Rulings under sub-section (1) of section 245Q and ending with the date on which the advance ruling pronounced

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

37 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under sub-section (1) of section 131 of this Act, or a notice under sub-section (4) of section 22 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under sub- section (1) of section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause

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

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

10 forms the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue).…” [emphasis supplied] Review Petition No. 400 of 2021 Page 27 of 161 30. Having adverted to Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act, 1962, he submitted that the officers of DRI would fall under Section 3 as “class of officers” and under Section 4 as “officers of customs” and that

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

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

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

37:23 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified 2 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 534 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 537 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 538 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 543 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 544 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 541 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 542 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 546 OF 2012 CIVIL APPEAL

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

37 of 59 (2) Any offence under this Chapter may, either before or after the institution of proceedings, be compounded by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or a Principal Director General or Director General. (3) Where any proceeding has been taken against any person under sub-section (1), any statement made or account or other document produced

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

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

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

37. The aforesaid discussion pertaining to the interpretation of Sections 150 (1) and 153(3)(ii) including the operation of Section 149, prescribing limitation for issue of notice, under Section 148 and Section 153(2) providing limitation for passing an order, under Section 147, however, does not mean that the Commissioner of Income Tax, in exercise of his power, under

COMMNR.,CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, KERALA vs. M/S. LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD

Appeals are disposed of

10) 24. A close look at the Finance Act, 1994 would show that the five taxable services referred to in the charging Section 65(105) would refer only to service contracts simpliciter and not to composite works contracts. This is clear from the very language of Section 65(105) which defines “taxable service” as “any service provided”. All the services

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

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

10 & 11). It is submitted that the said CA 5769/2022 Etc. Page 17 of 67 decision was subsequently followed and affirmed by this Court in the case of Standard Chartered Finance Limited v. CIT, Bangalore, (2016) 14 SCC 634 (Civil Appeal No. 1101 of 2016 dated 9.2.2016). 3.13 It is further submitted by Shri Datar, learned senior counsel appearing

NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

reassessments were not satisfied. The re­assessments were made with reference to clause (b) of Section 147 of the Act, and apparently the Income Tax Officer proceeded on the basis that in consequence of information in his   possession   he   had   reason   to   believe   that   income chargeable   to   tax   had   escaped   assessment   for   the   two assessment years. From the material before

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

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE NASHIK COMMISSIONERATE

The appeals are partly allowed;

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

10 of 31 for BPCL to charge different prices to OMCs for sales made to them vis-à-vis their own dealers. 15. The learned senior counsel relied upon the terms of the MOU, which incorporate a price fixation formula in MOU based on IPP, which is defined to mean the landed cost of a product at a particular port

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

The appeals are allowed in the above

10,000/- with effect from April 1, 1975 upto March 31, 1976, according to the Bombay/Allahabad view, whereas according to the Calcutta/Gujarat view, the assessee would be entitled to interest under Section 214 on the whole sum of Rs. 15,000/- with effect from April 1, 1975 upto March 31, 1977. This is the natural and logical consequence flowing from