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

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

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

Sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance, as the case

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

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

153(3)(ii) of the Act, stated: “In this regard, it is important to note that these notices were issued to give effect to the directions contained in the revision order u/s 263 passed by the CIT on 12.7.2004 unlike Section 149 of the Act, there is no time limit u/s 150(1) that starts with non obstante clause

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14 vs. JASJIT SINGH

The appeals are dismissed in terms of signed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years and for the relevant assessment year or years referred to in this sub-section pending on the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate:….” “153C.(1) Notwithstanding anything

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD

sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance, as the case

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

The appeal is allowed without

sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped

PARASHURAM POTTERY WORKS CO. LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-1, WARD 'A', RAJKOT,GUJARAT

sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance, as the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO.16(2) vs. M/S TECHSPAN INDIA PRIVATE LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. TECHSPAN INDIA LTD.) THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIR

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL

sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped

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

reassess such income or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance or deduction for such assessment year (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153

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

153. Time-limit for completion of assessments and reassessments. - (1) No order of assessment shall be made under section 143 or section

NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped

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

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

Section 6 is the only Section which provides for entrustment of functions of Customs officer on other officers of the Central or the State Government or local authority, it reads as follows:- “6. Entrustment of functions of Board and customs officers on certain other officers. - The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, entrust either conditionally or unconditionally

COMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. M/S DAMANI BROTHERS

The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above

153(3): The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall not apply to the following classes of assessments, reassessments

INDIAN AND EASTERN NEWSPAPER SOCIETY NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance, as the case

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LAXMAN DAS KHANDELWAL

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

153(D) of 1961 Act. Rupees 9,09,110/- was added on account of unexplained cash under Section 69 of 1961 Act. Rs.15,09,672/- was added on account of unexplained jewellery. Rupees 45,00,000/- was added on account of unexplained hundies and Rs.29,53,631/- was added on account of unexplained cash receipts. Aggrieved, the assessee 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.

153/- and tax determined at Rs.46,68,676/- and demand of Rs.96,98,801/-, inclusive of interest at Rs.55,53,882/- was raised after adjusting pre-paid tax of Rs.5,23,756/-. The Department then issued show- cause notice for prosecution under Section 276CC on 14.6.1996. Later, sanction for prosecution was accorded by the Commissioner of Income

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 INCOME-TAX vs. SARDAR LAKHMIR SINGH

The appeals are dismissed with costs, one hearing fee

reassessment of the assessee and his father as individuals. Thereupon the Income-tax Officer, by order dated November 27, 1953, assessed the assessee as an individual. 149 The assessce contended that the assessment not having been made within four years of the year 1946-47 i.e. by March 31, 1951, was barred by s. 34(3) of the Income