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 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 of appeals. The Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra Date: 2024.01.23 17:23

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

The appeals are allowed in the above

23 of 39 mean revised order of assessment passed pursuant to a direction of a higher authority, the consequences will be very harsh for the assessee under Section 215 and also under Section 217. Section 217 deals with a case where the assessee had not been hitherto assessed to tax and has not sent an estimate as required

SHABINA ABRAHAM vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

reassessment or recomputation under section 147) of the income of the deceased and for the purpose of levying any sum in the hands of the legal representative in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1),— (a) any proceeding taken against the deceased before his death shall be deemed to have been taken against the legal representative

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

The appeals are allowed

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

reassessment or recomputation which is twenty-one months subject to the provisos therein when an assessment is made under Sections 143 or 144 of the Act; that, in a case where Section 92C applies, sub-section (4) of Section 153 may have expressly extended the limitation period by twelve months which is by way of a recent amendment

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

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.

23,279/-, inclusive of interest levied. Later, a show- cause notice for prosecution under Section 276CC was issued to A-3 on 7.8.1996. A-3 filed replies on 24.11.1996 and 24.3.1997. The Commissioner of Income Tax accorded sanction for prosecution on 4.8.1997. 8. We may incidentally also point out, the final tax liability so far as the firm is concerned

INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. VIKRAM SUJITKUMAR BHATIA

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

reassessing the total income for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made and for the relevant assessment year or years as referred to in sub-section (1) of CIVIL APPEAL NO. 911 OF 2022 Page 23

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

23. It is clear that on the facts of the present case the provisional assessment had been made in 1998 and the final 17 Page 18 JUDGMENT assessment only on 4.11.2004 by the Commissioner. Both these dates being prior to 13.7.2006, Shri Lakshmikumaran is right and no interest is chargeable under Section 18 of the Customs Act, for the period

THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS vs. M/S M.M. RUBBER & CO

reassessment power under Section 34(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 which read as follows: "No order of assessment under Section 23

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

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

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

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

23. There is a statutory presumption prescribed in Section 278-E. The court has to presume the existence of culpable mental state, and absence of such mental state can be pleaded by an accused as a defence in respect to the act charged as an offence in the prosecution. Therefore, the factual aspects highlighted by the appellants were rightly

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

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

23. Before, however, adverting to the jurisdictional issue raised by the Assessee herein, we may consider the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax to issue notice in terms of Section 263 of the Act. It provides for a revisional power. It has its own limitations. An order can be interfered suo motu by the said authority not only when

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

Appeals are disposed of

23 of this judgment, the second Gannon Dunkerley judgment is referred to in passing without noticing any of the key paragraphs set out hereinabove in our judgment. Also, we find that the judgment in G.D. Builders (supra) went on to quote from the judgment in Mahim Patram Private Ltd. v. Union of India, 2007 (3) SCC 668, to arrive

NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO

reassessments were not satisfied. The re­assessments were made with reference to clause (b) of Section 147 of the Act, and apparently the Income Tax Officer proceeded on the basis that in consequence of information in his   possession   he   had   reason   to   believe   that   income chargeable   to   tax   had   escaped   assessment   for   the   two assessment years. From the material before

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) and (3) were introduced to the main section

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

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

23 ITR 454 (paragraphs 3 & 4) (Bombay High Court Judgment); CA 5769/2022 Etc. Page 26 of 67 v) Estate of A. Mohammed Rowther v. CIT, Madras, 1963 49 ITR 39, (Madras High Court Judgment); vi) CIT v. Chitra Palayakat Co., 1985 156 ITR 730 (Madras High Court Judgment); vii) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nandlal Gandalal