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

14 was 31.10.2013, whereas the appellant filed the return for the said year on 29.11.2014. Hence, the appellant once again breached the requirement of Section 276CC and thus committed an offence as defined under the said provision. 43. Even otherwise, it has not been disputed by the appellant that an offence under Section 276CC was committed

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

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

2 and 3 of Section 143, Section 144 and Section 145 of the Act and the AO would proceed to pass an assessment order and determine the tax payable u/s 158BC(c) of the Act. In other words, the order of assessment on undisclosed income of block period gets passed u/s 158BC(c) of the Act and the manner

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

The appeal is allowed

14. To hold that the amendment to sub-section (1) would enable the Authorities to reopen assessments, which had already attained finality due to bar of limitation prescribed under Section 149 of the Act as applicable prior to 1.4.1989, would amount to giving sub-section (1) a retrospective operation which is neither expressly nor impliedly intended by the amended

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

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

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 of 161 Section 2(34) of the Act, 1962, was competent to issue notice under Section 28 of the Act, 1962. 14. It appears from the decision

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

14 (b) an order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147 or section 150; (c) an order 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 assesssee under either of the said sections; (d) an order made under section

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

14. By this method, the Court found the continuity of the legal personality of the assessee is maintained in order to enable the assessment of turnover which has escaped assessment. The crucial difference, therefore, between Section 15(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 and Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act is that Section 11A does

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

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

iii) clarificatory amendments which are retrospective in nature.” 30. It   is   also   relevant   to   know   as   to   how   the   statutory provisions of Section 14A sub­section (2) and sub­section (3), Rule 8D was understood by the Income Tax department itself. After   insertion   of   sub­section   (2)   and   sub­section   (3)   in Section 14A by Finance Bill, 2006, circular dated 28.12.2006 was issued

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

The appeals are allowed

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

iii) of sub-section (4) of section 12AB, as the case may be, is received by the Assessing Officer, shall be excluded: Provided that where immediately after the exclusion of the aforesaid period, the period of limitation referred to in sub- sections (1), (1A), (2), (3) and sub-section (8) available to the Assessing Officer for making an order

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

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

reassessment or recomputation may be taken.” The aforementioned provision although appears to be of a very wide amplitude, but would not mean that recourse to reopening of the proceedings in terms of Sections 147 and 148 of the Act can be initiated at any point of time whatsoever. Such a proceeding can be initiated only within the period of limitation

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

The appeal is allowed without

reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under sub- section (2) of section 139; and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if the notice were a notice issued under

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.

14. In so far assessment year 1992-1993 is concerned, the assessing officer passed the reassessment order also on 21.03.2002 under Section 144/147 of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.25,06,660.00. Thereafter allocation of income was made amongst the partners in the manner indicated in the order of reassessment. 8 15. At this stage

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

14 of 39 illustration, we have not taken into consideration the effect of sub-section (1) of Section 244 or sub-section (1A) of Section 244 (introduced with effect from October 1, 1975) or sub-section (1A) of Section 214 (which is effective from April 1, 1968) or the substituted sub-section (1A) of Section 214 (effective from April

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

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

14). It is submitted that in the said decision, it is observed and held by this Court that under section 147, CA 5769/2022 Etc. Page 31 of 67 the AO has been vested with the power to ‘assess or reassess’ the escaped income of an assessee. That the term ‘escaped assessment’ includes both “non- assessment” as well as “under assessment

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

Appeals are disposed of

14. Crucial to the understanding and determination of the issue at hand is the second Gannon Dunkerley judgment which is reported in (1993) 1 SCC 364. By the aforesaid judgment, the modalities of taxing composite indivisible works contracts was gone into. This Court said:- “On behalf of the contractors, it has been urged that under a law imposing

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.

14. We may, at the outset, point out that the appellants had earlier approached this Court and filed SLP(C) Nos.3655- 3658 of 2005 which were disposed of by this Court directing the trial court to dispose of the petition for discharge within a period of two months by its order dated 03.03.2006. Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate rejected the petitions