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

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

145, 24 147, 148, 149 and 151 of the Act, both pre 01.04.1989 and post 01.04.1989. He submits that there was admittedly non-disclosure of material facts by the assessee, and, therefore, the extended period under the proviso to Section 147 of the Act was available to the department. Viewed in the above context, the notices issued under Section

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

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

reassessment unless a provision to that effect inserted by amendment is either expressly or by necessary implication retrospective. (See Controller of Estate Duty Gujarat-I v. M.A. Merchant9. We would also like to reproduce hereunder the following observations made by this Court in the case of Govinddas v. Income-tax Officer10, while holding Section 171 (6) of the Income

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

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

reassess and allow clearances is still with the officer of customs. Review Petition No. 400 of 2021 Page 50 of 161 (iv) On the issue of whether there are any statutory limitations to the assignment of powers under Section 28 only to those officers who do assessment or re-assessment under Section 17, he submitted that the scheme

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HARI CHAND SHRI GOPAL

reassess the correct amount of duty payable following the provisions of section 11A of the Act http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 15 and the assessee shall pay the deficiency, if any. Rule 173G. Procedure to be followed by the assessee.\027 (1) Every assessee shall keep an account-current with the Commissioner separately for each excisable

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

145 of the 1961 Act, as it stood prior to 1997, the income of the appellant had to be determined on the basis of method of accounting followed by the appellant year to year and that method could be departed from by the A.O. only if it was in a position to give a finding that the correct income