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

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

Section 148 were issued. The original assessments for the assessment years 1990 – 1991, 1991 – 1992 and 1992 – 1993 were completed on 29.01.1992, 29.01.1992 and 26.03.1993 respectively. The balance sheet for the assessment year 16 1993 – 1994 which was used as the basis for reassessment

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

reassessment under section 115WG; Civil Appeal No. 8945 of 2019 @ SLP(C) No.20728 of 2019 Genpact India Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. 16

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

The appeals are allowed

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

16) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any proceedings under Chapter XIV-B. xxx 153. Time limit for completion of assessment, reassessment

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

The appeal is allowed without

16. Section 147 authorises and permits the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to tax if he has reason

SHABINA ABRAHAM vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

16. Similarly, under Section 168, where the assessee has left a Will, the income of the estate of the deceased person 20 Page 21 JUDGMENT becomes chargeable in the hands of the executor of such will. This is made clear by Section 168. 17. It will be seen that the definition of “assessee” contained in Section

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

reassessment was based upon the IDS declaration of Garg Logistics. In fact, the disclosure was voluntarily provided by the assessee’s chairman during the search by a statement under Section 132(4). 8 13. It was pointed out that the AO’s opinion has to be based upon some objective material on the record as to constitute tangible material

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

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

Section 28 respectively of the Act, 1962, it is manifest that only such a custom officer who has been assigned the specific functions of assessment and reassessment in the jurisdictional area where the import concerned has been affected, either by the Board or the Commissioner of Customs, in terms of Review Petition No. 400 of 2021 Page 16

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

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

reassess   under   section   147   or   pass   an   order enhancing   the   assessment   or   reducing   a   refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of   the   assessee   under   section   154,   for   any assessment year beginning on or before the Ist day of April, 2001.”  11 18. By   Finance   Act,   2006,   Section   14A   was   numbered   as sub­section (1) and after sub­section (1) sub­sections

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,CHENNAI vs. M/S ALAGENDRAN FINANCE LTD

Section 263 of the Act would begin to run from the date of the order of assessment and not from the order of reassessment. The revisional jurisdiction having, thus, been invoked by the Commissioner of Income Tax beyond the period of limitation, it was wholly without jurisdiction rendering the entire proceeding a nullity. 16

BRIJ LAL vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

reassessment, tax shall be calculated on the aggregate of the total income as assessed in the earlier proceeding for assessment under section 143 or section 144 or section 147 and the income disclosed in the application as if such aggregate were the total 1 income. FORM NO. 34B [See rules 44C and 44CA] Form of application for settlement of case

INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. VIKRAM SUJITKUMAR BHATIA

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

16 of 67 has further observed that by amendment brought in Section 153C of the Act, 1961 by Finance, Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015, a new class of assesses are sought to be brought within the sweep of Section 153C of the Act, which affects the substantive rights of the assessees and, therefore, cannot be said to be a mere change

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

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.

16. Section 139 of the Act prior to 1989-90 and after, placed a statutory mandate on every person to file an income tax return in the prescribed form and in the prescribed manner. The Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 with effect from 01.04.1989 made various amendments to the Income Tax Act, by which the assessing officer

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

16(2) .... Appellant(s) Versus M/s TechSpan India Private Ltd. & Anr. .... Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T R.K. Agrawal, J. 1) The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned final judgment and order dated 24.02.2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No 14376 of 2005 whereby a Division Bench

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

reassess under section 147 or pass Page 7 of 22 an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.” 12. The sub-Section (2) and (3) were introduced to the main section

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

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

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

16 of 67 premises of the Chartered Accountant of the assessee companies, i.e., M/s Rattan Gupta & Co. It is submitted that such an approach is wholly untenable in law, besides being perverse. 3.10 It is further submitted that as observed and held by this Court in the cases of Ajay Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand, 2021 SCC OnLine