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

The appeal is allowed without

reassessment proceedings was valid and he had jurisdiction to undertake such an exercise. It is in the aforesaid backdrop of facts that the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 12th May, 2004 was challenged by the respondent. 5. The High Court allowed the writ petition following the decision of the High Court in Adani Exports v. Deputy

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

The appeals are allowed in the above

v. Commissioner of http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 24 of 39 Income Tax (31 I.T.R.698). ‘Assessment’ has been given an inclusive meaning in sub-section (8) of Section 2. It includes re-assessment. ‘Regular Assessment’ has been defined in Section 2(4) to mean the assessment made under Section 143 or Section 144. The procedure for making

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

The appeals are allowed

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

reassessment shall be completed in accordance with the provisions of this section as it stood immediately before its substitution by the Finance Act, 2016 (28 of 2016). Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section, in computing the period of limitation— (i) the time taken in reopening the whole or any part of the proceeding or in giving an opportunity

INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. VIKRAM SUJITKUMAR BHATIA

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

reassess total income of such other person of such assessment year in the manner provided in Section 153-A.” 4.1 It is submitted by Shri Nataraj, learned ASG that the amendment in Section 153C was necessitated in view of the observation of the Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

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

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

v. Mere error of law and/or a different view from that of the Assessing Officer by itself could not have been a ground for exercising the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. vi. Section 150(1) of the Act whereupon reliance has been placed by the Revenue is not applicable. vii. Special Leave Petition filed by CIT (Shimla

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

v. State of Assam, (1997) 6 SCC 479, this Court held:- “11. Section 9(2-A) makes applicable to the assessment, re-assessment, collection and enforcement of Central sales tax the provisions relating to offences and penalties contained in the State Acts as if the Central sales tax was a State sales tax. But Section 9(2-A) makes

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

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

1) of Section 132 of the Act are not satisfied. Since the view of the High Court is based upon established principles of law, no case for interference is made out in the present appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Datar referred to the following judgments, namely, Seth Brothers & Ors. etc.; Vindhya Metal Corporation & Ors; Ajit

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

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

reassessment under Section 17 alone is qualified to become a proper officer under Section 28 for the purpose of raising demand of short levy, non-levy or erroneous refund. No other officer can be assigned the functions of the proper officer under Section 28. (ii) Secondly, the judgment was rendered in connection with officers of the Customs (Preventive), who were

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

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

36. Elaborating further on the expression “change of opinion”, this Court in Techspan India Private Limited (supra) observed that to check whether it is a case of change of opinion or not one would have to see its meaning in literal as well as legal terms. The expression “change of opinion” would imply formulation of opinion and then a change

SHABINA ABRAHAM vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

reassess with the original jurisdiction to assess the dealer in the very first place. Further, this Court also construed Section 19 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 which would throw light on the earlier Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, as containing the necessary machinery provisions to assess dissolved firms in respect of escaped turnover pre-dissolution. Hence, this Court

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

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE NASHIK COMMISSIONERATE

The appeals are partly allowed;

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

v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik9, the interpretation of various clauses in the MOU has been made. Moreover, there is no finding recorded in both the decisions of the Tribunal on the issue of whether the price was the sole consideration for the sale. He submitted that even assuming there was a merger of the decision in the case

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI vs. M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER

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

reassessment   unless   a provision   to   that   effect   inserted   by amendment   is   either   expressly   or   by necessary   implication   retrospective. (See CED v. M.A. Merchant.) 35.   We   would   also   like   to   reproduce hereunder the following observations made by this Court in Govind Das v. ITO, while holding Section 171(6) of the Income Tax Act   to   be   prospective   and   inapplicable

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

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

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

1 (SC); viii)A.M.M. Firm v. Reserve Bank of India, 1982 SCC OnLine Mad. 187 (Madras High Court Judgment); ix) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bank of China, 1985 SCC OnLine Cal. 24 (Calcutta High Court Judgment); and x) Universal Cargo Carriers Inc. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 1990 SCC OnLine Cal. 385 (Calcutta High Court Judgment) 4.3 Relying upon

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

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 expenses actually incurred and the deductibility of such expenses viewed over