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

17. The heading of the section or the marginal note may be relied upon to clear any doubt or ambiguity in the interpretation of the provision and to discern the SLP (C) NO. 20519 of 2024 Page 28 of 59 legislative intent. In CIT v. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai and Co. [1950 SCC 94 : AIR 1950 SC 134] after referring

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 3 vs. ABHISAR BUILDWELL P. LTD

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

17 of 59 search is conducted or requisition is made and for the assessment year/years. II. Parliament has chosen the expressions “asses” or “reassess” the total income. III. It is the total income and not the undisclosed income that requires to be assessed u/s 153A. The expression “undisclosed income” which was defined under erstwhile scheme Section 158B

K.M. SHARMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 13(7),NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

17. We do not find the above reasoning of the High Court is sound. The plain language of sub-section (2) of Section 150 clearly restricts application of sub-section (1) to enable the Authority to reopen assessments which have not already become final on the expiry of prescribed period of limitation under Section 149. As is sought

M/S.JASWAL NECO LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, VISAKHAPATNAM

17. In the present case, we find that prior to introduction of sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Act in the present form, there was no liability to pay interest on difference between finally assessed duty and provisionally assessed duty upon payment of which the assessee may have cleared the goods. It was only with effect from

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

reassessment under sub-section (3) of section 92CD; (c) an order made under section 154 or section 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or an order refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee under either of the said sections except of an order referred to in sub- section (12) of section 144BA

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

SHABINA ABRAHAM vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

17. It will be seen that the definition of “assessee” contained in Section 4(3)(a) of the Central Excises and Salt Act is similar to the definition of assessee contained in the Income Tax Act, 1922. Under that Act, as we have already seen, an assessee means “a person by whom income tax is payable.” Under the Central Excises

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

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

17 past and the future years of Assessments could not have been issued; some of them being barred by limitation. iv. The order of the CIT (Shimla) being biased, the Tribunal has rightly interfered therewith as the notices under Section 148 of the Act had been issued pursuant to the directions of the CIT (Shimla), the same are not maintainable

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

The appeals are allowed

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

17 of 112 the Tribunal vide Section 246A(1)(a). On the other hand, an assessment order made pursuant to the directions of the DRP is appealable under Section 253(1)(d) of the Act before the Tribunal. Thus, an assessment order made under Section 144C is also an assessment made within the meaning of Section 143(3) but appealable

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

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

17. By   Finance   Act,   2002,   a   statutory   provision   was   also inserted by way of proviso to Section 14A.  What was clarified by the Circular have been statutorily engrafted in the proviso to the following effect:­            “Provided that nothing contained in this section shall   empower   the   assessing   officer   either   to reassess   under   section   147   or   pass   an   order enhancing   the   assessment

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

The appeal is allowed without

iii) those claims which were on the basis of the information available in the return, prima facie inadmissible, were to be rectified/allowed/disallowed. What was permissible was correction of errors apparent on the basis of the documents accompanying the return. The Assessing Officer had no authority to make adjustments or adjudicate upon any debatable issues. In other words, the Assessing Officer

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

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

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

reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation in terms of the proviso to Section 147. The other two grounds raised by the assessee were also repelled by the first appellate authority. Thereafter, CIT(A) made a detailed examination of the factual aspect whereafter it proposed enhancement 10 of the quantum of escaped income. Following the same, CIT(A) enhanced the assessment

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,CHENNAI vs. M/S ALAGENDRAN FINANCE LTD

iii), excess depreciation on gas cylinders and goods containers. Although the assessee’s return in respect of lease equalization was not the subject matter of the reassessment proceedings, the Commissioner of Income Tax purported to invoke his revisional jurisdiction in terms of Section 263 of the Act and by an order dated 29.03.2004 held as under: "5. In short, from

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

The appeals are allowed in the above

17 of 39 1968.) This section introduces a legal fiction that amount of advance tax paid shall be treated as payment of tax in respect of income of the relevant previous year. It also provides that credit for this advance tax has to be given to the assessee in the regular assessment. These provisions were necessary because the liability

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

reassessment or re-computation is : made on the assessee or any person in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under section 250, 254, 260, 262, 263 or 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this Act;... Explanation

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

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

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 on behalf of the assessee companies that as such there was no material

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.

17. The Income Tax Act, therefore, had stipulated both the penalty under Section 271(1)(a) and prosecution under Section 276CC, the former for depriving taxes due to the exchequer and later for the offence/infraction committed. As already indicated by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989, penalty provision under Section 271(1)(a) had been Page 19 JUDGMENT 19 deleted