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

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

e. In short, assessment on undisclosed income for block period is an independent assessment from the rest of the assessments all of which put together would rest in assessment in total income. (vii) Section 158BC provides the procedure for block assessment and determine the undisclosed income of the block period in the manner laid down in Section 158BB

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

reassess, collect and enforce payment of the Central sales tax payable by a dealer as if it was payable under the State Act; this is the first part of Section 9(2). By the second part thereof, these authorities are empowered to exercise the powers they have under the State Act and the provisions of the State Act, including provisions

SHABINA ABRAHAM vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

E of the first Schedule and in relation to cosmetics and toilet preparations as defined in Item No.14-F of that Schedule, includes the conversion of powder into tablets or capsules, the labeling or relabeling of containers intended for consumers and repacking from bulk packs to retail packs or the adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable

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

E N T CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3301 OF 2007 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 18372 of 2006] S.B. SINHA, J : 1. Leave granted. 2. Whether for the purpose of computing the period of limitation envisaged under Sub-section (2) of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), the date of order of assessment

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

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

e) Assistant Directors of Income-tax or Assistant Commissioners of Income-tax. (f) Income-tax Officers” Section 117 of the Act provides for appointment of Income-tax authorities. Control of Income-tax authorities is specified in Section 118 in the following terms: “118. The Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that any income-tax authority or authorities

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.

E N T UJJAL BHUYAN, J. The perennial question in income tax jurisprudence, whether reopening of a concluded assessment i.e. reassessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly “the Act” hereinafter) following issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act is legally sustainable or is bad in law, is again confronting us in the present batch

INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. VIKRAM SUJITKUMAR BHATIA

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

E N T M.R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 02.04.2019 passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 18777 of 2018 and other connected matters, as well as the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court of Gujarat in other special civil

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

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

E N T ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. Delay Condoned. Leave granted. 2. This appeal when alongwith several appeals were heard on 16.11.2016, this Court noticed that in batch of cases, four questions have arisen.   The present batch of cases of which Civil   Appeal   No.   2165   is   a   leading   case   relates   only   to Question No.2, which is to the following effect:­ “Whether

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

e) cost of consumables such as water, electricity, fuel, etc. used in the execution of the works contract the property in which is not transferred in the course of execution of a works contract; and (f) cost of establishment of the contractor to the extent it is relatable to supply of labour and services; (g) other similar expenses relatable

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.

E N T K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. We are concerned with four Criminal Appeals No.61 to 64 of 2007, out of which two Criminal Appeals No.61 of 2007 and 63 of 2007 relate to M/s Sasi Enterprises, a registered partnership firm, of which Ms. J. Jayalalitha and Mrs. N. Sasikala are partners, which relate to the assessment years

THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

E N T Hrishikesh Roy, J. 1. Leave granted in SLP(C) No. 32761/2018 for analogous consideration with the related appeals. 2. The question of law to be answered in the present batch of appeals is on interpretation of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act (for short “the Act”) and the same reads as follows: “Whether proportionate disallowance

MANISH MAHESHWARI vs. ASSTT.COMMNR.OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed

E N T WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 925 OF 2007 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.9751 of 2005] M/s Indore Construction (Pvt.) Ltd. \005Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax \005Respondent S.B. SINHA, J : Leave granted. Interpretation of the provision Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ’the Act’) is in question in these appeals which arise

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

The appeals are partly allowed;

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

E N T ABHAY S. OKA, J. FACTUAL CONTROVERSY CIVIL APPEAL NO.5642 OF 2009 1. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 5642 of 2009 is Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (for short, ‘BPCL’). It is a public-sector Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2025.01.20 18:48:23 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified Civil Appeal No.5642 of 2009 etc. Page 2