BRIJ LAL vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the regular assessment aforesaid. (4

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

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

4) For the purpose of assessment under this Chapter, losses brought forward from the previous year under Chapter VI or unabsorbed depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32 shall not be set off against the undisclosed income determined in the block assessment under this Chapter, but may be carried forward for being set off in the regular assessments. Civil

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

reassessment.” (Emphasis supplied) 66. A perusal of Paragraph 12.4 of the 2014 guidelines as reproduced hereinabove shows that the compounding fee to be levied in the case of an offence under Section 276CC is to be reckoned from the date immediately following the date on which return was due. This is in consonance with Section

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

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

4) assessment under section 153A in consequence of search under section 132. iii) It is submitted that the assessment under section 153A is a special procedure for assessment in consequence of search and is distinct from regular scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) or reassessment

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX vs. HINDUSTAN BULK CARRIERS

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

reassessment for any years and at any stage in original, appellate or revisional proceeding. The definition of ’case’ excludes appeals or revisions which have not been formally admitted by the concerned authorities. This definition clause (b) of Section 245 A indicates that the Settlement Commission can take up for settlement a ’case’ as defined which is pending at any stage

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

The appeals are allowed

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

reassessment or recomputation which is twenty-one months subject to the provisos therein when an assessment is made under Sections 143 or 144 of the Act; that, in a case where Section 92C applies, sub-section (4

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

The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above

reassessments, and recomputations which may, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2A), be completed at any time (i) xxx xxx xxx [Explanation 1. In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of this section xxx xxx xxx (v) in a case where an application made before the Income-tax Settlement Commission under section 245C is rejected

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

The appeals are allowed in the above

4) or sub- section (5) of Section 139. A best judgment assessment could also be made under Section 144, if the assessee failed to comply with all the terms of a notice under sub-section (2) of Section 143. The assessment under Section 143 or 144 had to be completed within the time limit prescribed by sub- section

HUSSAIN BHAI AND OTHERS vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS

reassessment should have been made under that section as in force before its amendment by clause (a) of section 18 of the Finance Act 1956 (18 of 1956), had expired." 395 The learned counsel for the State quite rightly does not rely on Section 34 (4

SHABINA ABRAHAM vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

reassessment or recomputation under section 147) of the income of the deceased and for the purpose of levying any sum in the hands of the legal representative in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1),— (a) any proceeding taken against the deceased before his death shall be deemed to have been taken against the legal representative

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT CENTRAL vs. SAURASTHRA CEMENT & CHEM. INDUSTRIES LTD

reassessment or re-computation is : made on the assessee or any person in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under section 250, 254, 260, 262, 263 or 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this Act;... Explanation

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

The appeals are partly allowed;

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

Section 4(1) would apply. 24. We have perused the MOU dated 31st March 2001. IOCL, HPCL, BPCL and IBP are the parties to the MOU. As stated earlier, IBP later merged with IOCL. Recital nos. (i), (ii) and (iii) are very relevant, which read thus: “(i) All the above Oil Marketing Companies except IBP are engaged in the business

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

The appeal is allowed

4 of 5 which creates such unjust and discriminatory situation, has to be avoided. We do not find that sub-section (2) of section 150 has that result. Sub-section (2) intends to insulate all proceedings of assessments, which have attained finality due to the then existing bar of limitation. To achieve the desired result it was not necessary

COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM vs. SMT. LUCY KOCHUVAREED

The appeals are allowed, but in the circumstances of the case we make no

4 of 6 the record of any proceeding under this Act which has been taken by any authority subordinate to him and may make such enquiry or cause such enquiry to be made and, subject to the provisions of this Act, may pass such orders thereon as he thinks fit: Provided that he shall not pass any order prejudicial

SHITAL FIBERS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the IT Act were initiated in respect of the said Assessment Year by the order dated 10th December 2008 by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Range II, Jalandhar. Reliance was placed by the Revenue on the decision of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘ITAT’), Chennai (Special Bench) in the case of ACIT

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.

4) Any person who has not furnished a return within the time allowed to him under sub-section (1), or within the time allowed under a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142, may Page 21 JUDGMENT 21 furnish the return for any previous year at any time before the expiry of one year from

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. However, the High Court of Kerala in appeals filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Act has reversed the findings of the Tribunal by deciding the appeals preferred by the revenue in its favour. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed by the High Court of Kerala (briefly “the High Court” hereinafter), the assessee had preferred special

THE COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS vs. M/S M.M. RUBBER & CO

4) of the Act provides that the adjudicating authority shall file the application before the Tribunal in pursuance of the order made under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2)"within a period of. three months from the date of communication of the order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) to the adjudicating authority." 868 The words "from