THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS vs. M/S M.M. RUBBER & CO

189 and Sesharnrna v. Sankara, [1889] ILR 12 Mad. 1, it was held that the decision was passed when it was communicated to the parties. In The Secretary of State for India in Council v. Gopisetti Narayanaswami Naidu Guru, ILR 34 Madras 151, construing a similar provision in the Survey and Boundary Act, 1897 the same High Court held that

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

COMMNR.,CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, KERALA vs. M/S. LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD

Appeals are disposed of

reassess, collect and enforce payment of tax, including any interest or penalty, payable by a dealer under this Act as if the tax or interest or penalty payable by such a dealer under this Act is a tax or interest or penalty payable under the general sales tax law of the State; and for this purpose they may exercise