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

22. Whether there was wilful failure to furnish the return is a matter which is to be adjudicated factually by the court which deals with the prosecution case. Section 278-E is relevant for this purpose and the same reads as follows: “278-E. Presumption as to culpable mental state.— (1) In any prosecution for any offence under this

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

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

22. Even though the Customs Act would necessarily become attracted to Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act insofar as Anti-dumping duty is concerned, learned counsel further submitted that the Customs Act itself contained no provision for levy of interest until 13.7.2006. Section 18(3) was added only with effect from 13.7.2006 and reads as follows:- “(3) The importer

SHABINA ABRAHAM vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

22(2) of the Income-tax Act but no return was made within the period specified and he died. It was held that no assessment could be made under section 23(4) of the Act after his death. At p.106 it was observed:- "It is to be noticed that there is throughout the Act no reference to the decease

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

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

reassess such income, profits or gains. It is, therefore, manifest that once assessment is reopened by issuing a notice under sub-section (2) of section 22

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

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

22. We may, at this juncture, also notice the CBDT circular issued on 3.7.2001 vesting powers on different Commissioners; Item 27 whereof confers power in the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-VII, Delhi to exercise jurisdiction in respect of offices of the Income Tax Assessing Officer situate at Civil Lines (No. 114). 23. Before, however, adverting to the jurisdictional issue

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

The appeals are allowed

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

22 of 112 Act. But learned Brother Sharma, J. has opined that the timelines in sub-sections (4) and (13) of Section 144C of the Act are independent of the timeline contemplated under Section 153(3) of the Act and Section 144C operates in a timeline in addition to the timeline contemplated under Section 153(3) of the Act. Therefore

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 which is not permissible in law as 22 held by this Court in CIT, Delhi Vs. Kelvinator of India Limited, (2010) 2 SCC 723. He therefore submits that the order of the High Court is liable to be set aside and that of the Tribunal restored. 22. Mr. Shyam Gopal, learned counsel for the respondent at the outset

INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. VIKRAM SUJITKUMAR BHATIA

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

2) of Section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made, before the date of receiving the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned by the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person, such Assessing Officer shall issue the notice and assess or reassess total income of such other person

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

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

The appeals are allowed in the above

22 of 39 with the provisions of Chapter XVIID - Collection and Recovery (Sections 220 to 231). If there is any delay in payment of tax, the assessee may be liable to pay interest under sub-section (2) of Section 220. These provisions go to show that once an assessment order is made, liability to pay interest on the amount

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

Appeals are disposed of

22. Equally, this Court in Govind Saran Ganga Saran v. CST, 1985 Supp SCC 205, held:- “The components which enter into the concept of a tax are well known. The first is the character of the imposition known by its nature which prescribes the taxable event attracting the levy, the second is a clear indication of the person on whom

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

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

2(35)(b) of the Act CA 5769/2022 Etc. Page 22 of 67 expressing his intention to treat him as the Principal Officer of the assessee companies. Therefore, this failure vitiates the entire proceedings. 3.20 It is submitted that there is adequate evidence on record to establish that: (a)the business was managed from Gangtok in Sikkim where the business

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.

2) of section 73, or sub- section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, or sub- section (3) of section 74A, he may furnish, within the time allowed under sub-section (1), a return of loss in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and containing such other particulars as may be prescribed, and all the provisions

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

MANISH MAHESHWARI vs. ASSTT.COMMNR.OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed

22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under sub-section (1) of Section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause to be produce , any books of account or other documents has omitted or failed to produce, or cause to be produced, such books of account or other documents as required by such summons or notice

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE NASHIK COMMISSIONERATE

The appeals are partly allowed;

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

2 (2018) 7 SCC 733 3 (2016) 1 SCC 631 4 (2020) 9 SCC 662 Civil Appeal No.5642 of 2009 etc. Page 10 of 31 for BPCL to charge different prices to OMCs for sales made to them vis-à-vis their own dealers. 15. The learned senior counsel relied upon the terms of the MOU, which incorporate a price