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

The appeals are allowed

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

3), 144, 147 and 158. The exception to this is Section 172 of the Act under which an assessment order is passed on the landing of a ship on the Indian shores. 5.2 Arguing on the merits of the case, Sri Mistry contended that Section 153(1) of the Act prescribes the limitation period for completion of assessment, reassessment

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

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

1) regular assessment under section 143(3); (2) best judgment assessment under section 144; (3) reassessment in case of income

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

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

1) or section 148 or section 153A/153C as the case may be, existing on the date of conveyance of compounding charges to the applicant, determined after rectification u/s 154 of the Act, if any and as reduced by the tax deducted at source and advance tax, if any, paid during the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year, reckoned from

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS PVT.LTD

The appeal is allowed without

reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued. 19. Inevitable conclusion is that High Court has wrongly applied Adani\022s case (supra) which has no application to the case on the facts in view of the conceptual difference between Section 143(1) and Section 143(3

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

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

3)(ii) of the Act, stated: “In this regard, it is important to note that these notices were issued to give effect to the directions contained in the revision order u/s 263 passed by the CIT on 12.7.2004 unlike Section 149 of the Act, there is no time limit u/s 150(1) that starts with non obstante clause

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

1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts materials imported into India, against an Advance Licence with Actual User Condition in terms of para 7.4 of the Export & Import Policy 1997-2002 notified by the Government of India

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

The appeals are allowed in the above

1), it speaks of assessment made under Section 143 or 144 and a time limit for passing such an order was laid down in that sub-section. Sub-section (3), however, speaks of "the assessment, reassessment

K.M. SHARMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 13(7),NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

3 of 5 the proposed reassessment proceedings under the provisions of Section 149 of the Act. 11. The submission made on behalf of the appellant is that neither the provisions of sub-section (1

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

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

1) Review Petition No. 400 of 2021 Page 12 of 161 of Section 4 before the 06.07.2011 were deemed to have and always had the power of assessment under Section 17 and were deemed to be and always have been “proper officers” for the purpose of the said section. 6. The constitutional validity of Section

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

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

1) of section 142, setting forth his total income including the undisclosed income for the block period: Provided that no notice under Section 148 is required to be issued for the purpose of proceeding under this Chapter: Provided further that a person who has furnished a return under this clause shall not be entitled to file a revised return

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 passed under Section 144/147 of the Act were within limitation. 22.6. Learned counsel has specifically referred to Section 149 of the Act which deals with the time limit for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. Post amendment with effect from 01.04.1989, he submits that under Section 149 (1) (b) (iii), the limitation is, if seven years

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 or of assessment or reassesment under sub-section (1) of this section shall be made after the expiry, in any case to which clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 28 applies, of eight years

SHABINA ABRAHAM vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

3) speaks of the power of the Collector to assess the amount of tax due from the dealer after giving notice to him, if the Collector is not satisfied that the returns furnished are correct and complete. The jurisdiction to assess or reassess which is conferred by section 15(1

INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. VIKRAM SUJITKUMAR BHATIA

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

reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of Section 153A. It also further provided that in case of such other person, the reference to the date of initiation of the search under Section 132 or making of requisition under Section 132-A in the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 153-A shall

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE

The appeal is allowed

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

3 lessees. However, the appellant claimed depreciation on those assets under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for the sake of convenience) though the appellant was not the owner of the assets for the purpose of the said transactions. 2.2. On 09.06.2000 the Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section

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

Appeals are disposed of

1) of Section 127-A and the proviso to sub-section (2)(b) should be construed together and the annual letting values of all the buildings owned by a person to be taken together for determining the amount to be paid as tax in respect of each building. In our considered view this position cannot be accepted. The intention

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

3:00 am on 11.08.2018 in terms of Section 132 of the Act. The satisfaction note was not supplied to the assessee nor was required to be disclosed in terms of Explanation to Section 132(1) of the Act inserted by the Finance Act, 2017 with retrospective effect i.e. on 01.04.1962. The reasons recorded were produced before the High Court