COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX vs. HINDUSTAN BULK CARRIERS

The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above

reassessment, tax shall be calculated on the aggregate of the total income as assessed in the earlier proceeding for assessment under section 143 or section 144 or section 147 and the income disclosed in the application as if such aggregate were the total income. (1C) The additional amount of income-tax payable in respect of the income disclosed

BRIJ LAL vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

reassessment, tax shall be calculated on the aggregate of the total income as assessed in the earlier proceeding for assessment under section 143 or section 144 or section 147 and the income disclosed in the application as if such aggregate were the total 1 income. FORM NO. 34B [See rules 44C and 44CA] Form of application for settlement of case

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

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

Section 6 is the only Section which provides for entrustment of functions of Customs officer on other officers of the Central or the State Government or local authority, it reads as follows:- “6. Entrustment of functions of Board and customs officers on certain other officers. - The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, entrust either conditionally or unconditionally

COMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. M/S DAMANI BROTHERS

The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above

245-C of the Act, will subsist and the recovery proceedings will continue or not? On this issue, the petitioner is relying on the decision, reported in 206 ITR 443 [S.C.]; CIT vs. Express Newspaper Ltd. III. Whether after determination of liability by the Settlement Commission, the orders of the lower authorities under the Act would automatically stand set aside

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

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

reassessment of income for the aforesaid assessment years. The Assessing Officer also passed a penalty order dated 14.06.2000 levying a penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act after being satisfied that the appellant had concealed its income as regards lease rental. 2.3. While various proceedings, such as an appeal before the CIT (A) for the assessment year

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.

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. Page 3 JUDGMENT 3 2. M/s Sasikala Enterprises

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX-I,NEW DELHI vs. VATIKA TOWNSHIP P.LTD

Appeals of the assessees are allowed deleting the surcharge levied by the

reassessment unless a provision to that effect inserted by amendment is either expressly or by necessary implication retrospective. (See Controller of Estate Duty Gujarat-I v. M.A. Merchant9. We would also like to reproduce hereunder the following observations made by this Court in the case of Govinddas v. Income-tax Officer10, while holding Section 171 (6) of the Income

PLASTIBLENDS INDIA LIMITED THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR vs. ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 8(2) MUMBAI

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

reassessment proceedings and passed an assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 computing the gross total income at Rs.34,15,583/-. Though, the assessee had disclaimed deduction in respect of depreciation, the AO allowed deduction on this account as well in respect of the same in the sum of Rs.2,13,89,379/- while computing the profit

BASHESHAR NATH vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,DELHI & RAJASTHAN & ANOTHER

The appeal is allowed

Section 4 deals with the composition of the Commission, details whereof are unnecessary for our purpose, Sub-sections (1), (2) and (4) of s. 5 are relevant to the problems before us and must be read : " 5(1). The Central Government may at any time before the 1st day of September 1948 refer to the Commission for investigation and report

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VADODARA-I vs. M/S. GUJARAT CARBON & INDUSTRIES LTD

reassess the value of the taxable service.” 5. The Tribunal referred to a decision in the case of L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut-II (2004 (165) ELT 161) where under similar circumstances the show cause notice was issued. It was held that during the relevant period Section 73 takes in only the case of assessees who are liable

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY vs. ROBERT J. SAS

245 the notice, served on April 1, 1954 was out of time;? 212 The second question was reframed by the High Court as follows : If the answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative whether the notice served on April 1, 1954 was out of time ? Both the questions were answered in the affirmative and against the Commissioner

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

The appeals are allowed in the above

Section 143 or 144. Likewise, even though there is a shortfall in payment of tax according to the calculation made in the order of assessment, the assessee is obliged to pay interest on the seventy five percent of the amount of shortfall only upto the date of the assessment order, i.e., the date on which the amount of advance

M/S. ROTORK CONTROLA INDIA (P) LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in favour of the assessee with no order as to

245 ITR 428 (SC) and Metal Box Company of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen – (1969) 73 ITR 53 (SC). 7. Learned counsel next submitted that assuming for the sake of argument that the liability for warranty claim is a contingent liability, the amount claimed by the appellant as deduction was still allowable if deduction claimed is equal to the warranty