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

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

66,18,563/-, the differential duty to be paid amounted to Rs.1,70,98,510/-. Further, interest on the said amount at 24% was also held to be payable. 7. The appellant appealed to CESTAT. Vide the impugned judgment dated 18.8.2005, CESTAT partly allowed the appeal by remanding the matter to the original authority to calculate duty, interest, and penalty

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.

66,910.00 whereafter order was passed allocating income among the partners. 13. Likewise, for the assessment year 1991-1992, the assessing officer passed reassessment order dated 21.03.2002 under Section 144/147 of the Act determining total income at Rs.13,91,700.00. Following the same, allocation of income was also made amongst the partners. 14. In so far assessment year

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

SHABINA ABRAHAM vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS

66) 12. Similarly, in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay v. James Anderson, [1964] 51 I.T.R. 345, this Court referred with approval to the judgment in Ellis C. Reid’s case and further 15 Page 16 JUDGMENT held that even after Section 24B was enacted tax cannot be assessed on receipts on the footing that it is the personal income

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

Appeals are disposed of

66. Charge of service tax There shall be levied a tax (hereinafter referred to as the service tax) at the rate of ten per cent. Of the value of the taxable services referred to in sub-clauses

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

M/S. ROTORK CONTROLA INDIA (P) LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI

Appeals stand allowed in favour of the assessee with no order as to

66 (SC) and Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, M.P., and Anr. – (1985) 156 ITR 585 (SC). 6. Mr. S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the assessee, submitted that in this case the High Court had erred in not following the Rule of Consistency. In this connection, it was urged that right from assessment