M/S. MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS, KOTTAYAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM

Bench: This Court & On Leave Being Granted, Civil Appeals Have Been Registered. 3.

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in Sections

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

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

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

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

22 of 161 25. Section 4 relates to appointment of officers of customs and Section 5 deals with the powers and duties of officers of customs. There is only one significant change carried out in Section 4 on 11.05.2002. Prior to that date, the appointing Authority was the Central Government and post 11.05.2002, the Board became the appointing Authority

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

PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) vs. LALJIBHAI KANJIBHAI MANDALIA

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

22 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under sub- section (1) of section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause to be produced, 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

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. VIKRAM SUJITKUMAR BHATIA

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

reassess the income of the other person in accordance with the provisions of Section 153A, if, that Assessing Officer is satisfied that the books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned have a bearing on the determination of the total income of such other person for six CIVIL APPEAL NO. 911 OF 2022 Page 22

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.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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) CIRCLE 1(2) vs. M/S M.R. SHAH LOGISTICS PVT. LTD

Appeal is allowed in these terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped 10 assessments, including the limitation period within which notices can be issued, by its proviso, enacts that: “Provided that no notice under this section shall be issued unless there is information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the case

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

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.

22 (i) where such person has not made a return within the time allowed under sub-section (1) of section 139, to furnish a return of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other

SHITAL FIBERS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the IT Act were initiated in respect of the said Assessment Year by the order dated 10th December 2008 by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Range II, Jalandhar. Reliance was placed by the Revenue on the decision of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘ITAT’), Chennai (Special Bench) in the case of ACIT

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

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

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

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 was carried on by one Mr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal, Local