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

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

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

65,25,455/- ________________ Total Rs. 2,25,78,069/- _________________ The difference of Rs. 1,19,51,599/- is obviously the profit of the assessee during the AY 1990-91 to 1993- 94. The profit of AY 1993-94 as per the accounts is Rs. 5,08,548/-. If this is excluded, the profit for the three years

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

Appeals are disposed of

1) of Section 127-A and the proviso to sub-section (2)(b) should be construed together and the annual letting values of all the buildings owned by a person to be taken together for determining the amount to be paid as tax in respect of each building. In our considered view this position cannot be accepted. The intention

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS vs. M/S CANON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

reassess and allow clearances is still with the officer of customs. Review Petition No. 400 of 2021 Page 50 of 161 (iv) On the issue of whether there are any statutory limitations to the assignment of powers under Section 28 only to those officers who do assessment or re-assessment under Section 17, he submitted that the scheme

CHIEF COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN vs. M/S. KESARIA TEA CO. LTD

Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act for the opinion of the High Court: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that Rs.3,02,758/- cannot be brought to tax and in deleting the addition of Rs.3,02,758/- sustained by CIT (Appeals)?" The High

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(CENTRAL) vs. M/S. GWALIOR RAYON SILK MFG.(WVG.)CO.LTD

The appeal is partly allowed

Reassessment by the I.T.O. disallowing the assessee’s claim for depreciation on roads and drains to the extent of Rs. 15,50,526. On appeal the C.I.T. (Appeals) allowed the assessee’s claim for depreciation. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the revenue. At the instance of the revenue on a reference under Section 256(1) the High Court answered

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

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

reassess” refers to a situation where an assessment has already been made but the Income Tax Officer has, on the basis of information in his possession, reason to believe that there has been under assessment on account of the existence of any of the grounds contemplated by the provisions of Section 147(b) read with the Explanation (1) thereto