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

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

6 TC 542 (HL)).” v) In the case of Nandlal Gandalal (supra), this Court has held that the expression “control and management” in Section 4A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, means de CA 5769/2022 Etc. Page 59 of 67 facto control and management and not merely the right or power to control and manage

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

The appeal is allowed

6. The appellant, in the High Court, assailed the notices issued under Section http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5 148 of the Act for reassessment

BRIJ LAL vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

6) Where, in relation to an assessment year, an assessment is made for the first time under section 147, the assessment so made shall be regarded as a regular assessment for the purposes of this section and sections 216, 217 and 273. Interest for defaults in furnishing return of income. 234A. (1) Where the return of income for any assessment

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 MUMBAI vs. M/S. ESSAR TELEHOLDINGS LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER

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

reassessment   unless   a provision   to   that   effect   inserted   by amendment   is   either   expressly   or   by necessary   implication   retrospective. (See CED v. M.A. Merchant.) 35.   We   would   also   like   to   reproduce hereunder the following observations made by this Court in Govind Das v. ITO, while holding Section 171(6

M/S. MANGALAM PUBLICATIONS, KOTTAYAM vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM

Bench: This Court & On Leave Being Granted, Civil Appeals Have Been Registered. 3.

Section 147 was once again amended to reintroduce the expression “has reason to believe” in place of the expression “for reasons to be recorded by him in writing, is of the opinion”. This Court thereafter explained as under: 6. We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to reassess

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

M/S.JASWAL NECO LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, VISAKHAPATNAM

6 SCC 479, this Court held:- “11. Section 9(2-A) makes applicable to the assessment, re-assessment, collection and enforcement of Central sales tax the provisions relating to offences and penalties contained in the State Acts as if the Central sales tax was a State sales tax. But Section 9(2-A) makes no reference to interest. 12. There

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

SHABINA ABRAHAM vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

6) The liability of a legal representative under this section shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (4) and sub-section (5), be limited to the extent to which the estate is capable of meeting the liability.” “168. (1) Subject as hereinafter provided, the income of the estate of a deceased person shall be chargeable

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

The appeal is allowed without

reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under sub- section (2) of section 139; and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if the notice were a notice issued under

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, as the case may be, ends before the end of the month, such period shall be extended to the end of such month. Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, where, by an order referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (6

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

Appeals are disposed of

6) 23. To similar effect is this Court’s judgment in CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty, (1981) 2 SCC 460, held:- “Section 45 charges the profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset to income tax. The asset must be one which falls within the contemplation of the section. It must bear that quality which brings Section

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.

6 SCC 499. Referring to Section 278E of the Act, learned senior counsel submitted that till the assessment does not attain finality, Section 276CC is not complete and the presumption under Section 278E is not attracted. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the High Court has wrongly applied the principles laid down by this Court in Prakash Nath Khanna Page

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LAXMAN DAS KHANDELWAL

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

6. The question, however, remains whether Section 292BB which came into effect on and from 01.04.2008 has effected any change. Said Section 292BB is to the following effect:- “292BB. Notice deemed to be valid in certain circumstances. – Where an assessee has appeared in any proceeding or cooperated in any inquiry relating to an assessment or reassessment

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

6. We have already stated, in detail, the facts of Civil Appeal No. 2984 of 2008. Before we embark upon our detailed discussion on the issue, we would like to place on record the relevant provisions of the Act which have bearing on the issue. As mentioned above, Section 153 prescribes limitation of two years for making assessment under Section

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,CHENNAI vs. M/S ALAGENDRAN FINANCE LTD

Section 263 of the Act were barred by limitation, found favour with, opining: "6. We have carefully gone through the record and considered the rival submissions. In our view, the contentions of the Assessee deserve to succeed. The facts of the case clearly show the claim of lease equalisation fund, if at all accepted, is an error committed

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

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