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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, U.P. vs. GURBUX RAI HARBUX RAI

reassessment of excess profits tax. Under s. 15, if in consequence of definite information which has come into his possession, the Excess Profits Tax Officer discovers that the profits of any chargeable accounting period have escaped assessment, he may serve a notice on the assessee and proceed to assess the profits liable to excess profits tax. In the present case

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY vs. ROBERT J. SAS

189/- Mr. Robert J. Sas :Rs. 1,09,859/- The Income-tax Officer issued notices under s. 34 of the Act and the notices were served on the respective respondents on April 1, 1954. Thereafter the return of the income was submitted and the assessment was completed in regard ’to the shareholders. Appeals were taken first to the Appellate Assistant