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

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

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

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

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

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

4 SCC 77. (ii) Srikrishna Private Limited Vs. ITO, Calcutta, (1996) 9 SCC 534. 21.8. Summing up his submissions, learned counsel submits that as rightly held by the Tribunal, it was the change of view of the assessing officer upon assessing the comparative accounts of the partners which led to the reassessments which is not based on any fresh material

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 144 at any time after - (a) the expiry of - ... (iii) two years from the end of the assessment year Page 5 JUDGMENT 5 in which the income was first assessable, where such assessment year is an assessment year

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

The appeals are allowed in the above

4) or sub- section (5) of Section 139. A best judgment assessment could also be made under Section 144, if the assessee failed to comply with all the terms of a notice under sub-section (2) of Section 143. The assessment under Section 143 or 144 had to be completed within the time limit prescribed by sub- section

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14 vs. JASJIT SINGH

The appeals are dismissed in terms of signed

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

153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then, the books

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

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections

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

The appeal is allowed without

reassessment proceedings was valid and he had jurisdiction to undertake such an exercise. It is in the aforesaid backdrop of facts that the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 12th May, 2004 was challenged by the respondent. 5. The High Court allowed the writ petition following the decision of the High Court in Adani Exports v. Deputy

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

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

153 referred to as the relevant assessment year). Explanation.--For the purposes of assessment or reassessment or recomputation under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped 10 assessments, including the limitation period within which notices can be issued, by its proviso, enacts that: “Provided that no notice under

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

4 Court has erroneously held that the re-assessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 of the Act are illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel finally contended that the impugned judgment of the High Court is erroneous in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside. 6) Learned counsel appearing on behalf

NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

153 referred to as the relevant assessment year): Provided that where an assessment under sub­section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the  expiry of four years from the end of the  relevant assessment  year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped

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