COMMR. OF INCOME TAX vs. PARMESHWARI DEVI SULTANIA

reassessments." In view of the proceedings conducted under Section 132 of the Act and order having been passed under sub-section (5) of Section 132 thereof and seized assets including the gold ornaments, subject matter of the suit ordered to be retained, the Revenue objected to the maintainability of the suit and said that it was clearly barred by Section

M/S POLYFLEX (INDIA) PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNATAKA

The appeal is dismissed without costs

206 which is the amount of excise duty refunded by the department was brought to tax by invoking Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act (for short ’Act’). It appears that the excise duty was paid in the year 1986. On appeal, the first Appellate Authority as well as CEGAT held that the goods were not liable to duty