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

viii. CIT (Shimla) has not raised any question that the order of assessment was passed at the behest of the CIT, the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment relying on or on the basis of the said footnote. The said footnote was issued having regard to the circular letter issued by the CBDT itself dated

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

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 10 of 161 1. Since the pivotal question

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

Appeals are disposed of

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 of the material produced

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