COMMR. OF INCOME TAX vs. PARMESHWARI DEVI SULTANIA

reassessments." In view of the proceedings conducted under Section 132 of the Act and order having been passed under sub-section (5) of Section 132 thereof and seized assets including the gold ornaments, subject matter of the suit ordered to be retained, the Revenue objected to the maintainability of the suit and said that it was clearly barred by 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

5 of 57 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 540 of 2009) Page 6 JUDGMENT provisions of Section 113 of the Act as inserted by the Finance Act, 1995 and clarified by the Board Circular No.717 dated 14.08.1995, surcharge was leviable on the income assessed. According to the CIT the charging provision was Section 4 of the Act which

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

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

The appeals are allowed

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

4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1), (1A), (2), (3) and (3A), where a reference under sub- section (1) of section 92CA is made during the course of the proceeding for the assessment or reassessment, the period available for completion of assessment or reassessment, as the case may be, under the said sub- sections

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

4 is that while it stipulates that the eligibility conditions prescribed in the guidelines are to be satisfied necessarily, the ultimate discretion to compound the offence(s) or not has to be guided by factors which include the conduct of assessee, nature and magnitude of the offence and the unique facts of each case. 56. Paragraph 5

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

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

4. It is submitted that thus the income tax is tax on ‘total income.’ It is submitted that the term ‘total income’ has been defined in section 2(45) of the Act, 1961, which means the total amount of income referred to in section 5 and computed in the manner laid down in the Act. It is submitted that

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

SHABINA ABRAHAM vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

5) of Section 159. 16. Similarly, under Section 168, where the assessee has left a Will, the income of the estate of the deceased person 20 Page 21 JUDGMENT becomes chargeable in the hands of the executor of such will. This is made clear by Section 168. 17. It will be seen that the definition of “assessee” contained in Section

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

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

The appeal is allowed

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) nor sub-section (2) can be read as giving more than intended operation to the said provision. The provisions, it is argued, do not permit the authorities

PLASTIBLENDS INDIA LIMITED THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR vs. ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 8(2) MUMBAI

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

reassessment proceedings and passed an assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 computing the gross total income at Rs.34,15,583/-. Though, the assessee had disclaimed deduction in respect of depreciation, the AO allowed deduction on this account as well in respect of the same in the sum of Rs.2,13,89,379/- while computing the profit

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

5 in which the income was first assessable, where such assessment year is an assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 1969; or.... whichever is latest. . . . (3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall not apply to the following classes of assessments, reassessments and re-computations which may, subject to the provisions

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

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

The appeals are partly allowed;

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

5 SCC 373 Civil Appeal No.5642 of 2009 etc. Page 12 of 31 17. He submitted that the decision to invoke an extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 11A (1) of the 1944 Act was completely erroneous. He submitted that the instructions of the Board dated 14th February 2007 referred to the MOU, and therefore, there

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.

5) was reduced to one year from the end of the relevant assessment year. The provision of Section 139(2) stood incorporated in Section 142(1)(i). The notice under Page 18 JUDGMENT 18 Section 142(1)(i) to furnish a return of income cannot be issued in the course of the assessment year itself and need not give

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

5 of 9 tion that may also be set here and that reads: "2. The Collector of Central Excise may, of his own motion, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which an adjudi- cating authority subordinate to him has passed any decision or order under this Act for the purpose of satisfying himself

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

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

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

4 SCC 363 (paragraph 14). It is submitted that in the said decision, it is observed and held by this Court that under section 147, CA 5769/2022 Etc. Page 31 of 67 the AO has been vested with the power to ‘assess or reassess’ the escaped income of an assessee. That the term ‘escaped assessment’ includes both “non- assessment