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

The appeal is allowed without

vii) read with Section 36(2) of the Act were not fulfilled, the assessing officer reopened the assessment by issuing a notice in terms of Section 148 of the Act on the ground that it has reason to believe that the income assessable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. The respondent asked

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

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

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

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 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

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

reassessment of Income under the Act or its predecessor statute, the Essential Commodities Act, 1955; the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 as well as in respect of action of the Revenue in the matter of 9 (2000) 242 ITR 302 (Del.) 10 (2003) 260 ITR 80 (SC) 11 (2005) 278 ITR 36 (Bom.) 12 (2021) 433 ITR 203 (Telangana

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

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

vii. Section 4 of the Act, 1962 ...................................................................... 98 viii. Section 6 of the Act, 1962 .................................................................... 106 ix. Observations on the constitutional validity of Section 28 (11) of the Act, 1962 ..................................................................................................... 114 x. Bombay High Court decision in Sunil Gupta (supra) ........................... 123 xi. Amendments made by the Finance Act, 2022 ...................................... 138 F. CONCLUSION...................................................................................... 154 Review Petition No. 400 of 2021 Page

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

Appeals are disposed of

vii) and (viii), the cost of establishment of the contractor as well as the profit earned by him to the extent the same are relatable to supply of labour and services will have to be excluded. The amount so deductible would have to be determined in the light of the facts of a particular case on the basis

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

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

vii) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nandlal Gandalal, 1960 40 ITR 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