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

INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. VIKRAM SUJITKUMAR BHATIA

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

reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of Section 153A. It also further provided that in case of such other person, the reference to the date of initiation of the search under Section 132 or making of requisition under Section 132-A in the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 153-A shall

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

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

reassess’ the escaped income of an assessee. That the term ‘escaped assessment’ includes both “non- assessment” as well as “under assessment.” 4.8 Insofar as the submission on behalf of the appellants on service of notice is concerned, it is submitted that the principal place of business is the seat of control and therefore notice sent to Delhi is sufficient

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

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

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.

54,395/- giving effect to the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (B Bench), Chennai dated 11.10.2008 after giving credit to pre-paid tax. So far as A-3 is concerned, for the assessment year 1993-94, final tax liability was determined as Rs.9,81,870/- after giving effect to the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (B Bench), Chennai

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LAXMAN DAS KHANDELWAL

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

54,514/- as on 05.03.2010. Aggrieved, Revenue filed an appeal. The Assessee filed cross objection on the ground of jurisdiction of Assessment Officer regarding non issue of notice under Section 143(2) of the Act of 1961. The Tribunal vide impugned order upheld the cross objection and quashed the entire reassessment

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

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

reassessment or recomputation may be taken.” The aforementioned provision although appears to be of a very wide amplitude, but would not mean that recourse to reopening of the proceedings in terms of Sections 147 and 148 of the Act can be initiated at any point of time whatsoever. Such a proceeding can be initiated only within the period of limitation

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HARI CHAND SHRI GOPAL

reassess the correct amount of duty payable following the provisions of section 11A of the Act http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 15 and the assessee shall pay the deficiency, if any. Rule 173G. Procedure to be followed by the assessee.\027 (1) Every assessee shall keep an account-current with the Commissioner separately for each excisable

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

Appeals are disposed of

54 of the State List read with Article 366(29-A)(b), the tax is imposed on the goods which are involved in the execution of a works contract and the measure for levying such a tax can only be the value of the goods so involved and the value of the works contract cannot be made the measure

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

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

The appeals are allowed in the above

54 I.T.R.54) wherein it was held that an order of assessment made by the Income Tax Officer pursuant to an appellate order is yet an order of assessment within the meaning of Section 23 and appealable as such. The learned Judge pointed out that for all purposes, the revised assessment order is the order of regular assessment

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL), N. DELHI vs. GUJARAT PERSTORP ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeals are allowed

Section 112 of the Act as he was not involved in the actual import of drawings, designs, plans, etc. Mr. Arun Gupta, Director of the Company, in his reply, contended that Know how and FEEP were procured through courier after declaration to Customs Authorities and one of the consignments was sought to be cleared vide Bill of Entry dated December