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

reassess with the original jurisdiction to assess the dealer in the very first place. Further, this Court also construed Section 19 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 which would throw light on the earlier Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953, as containing the necessary machinery provisions to assess dissolved firms in respect of escaped turnover pre-dissolution. Hence, this Court

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) CIRCLE 1(2) vs. M/S M.R. SHAH LOGISTICS PVT. LTD

Appeal is allowed in these terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

reassessment. 4. The “reasons to believe” which were the basis for re-opening the assessment, recorded that search proceedings were conducted in the M.R. Shah group and Champalal group of companies on 20.09.2016 and that during the course of previous searches in the case of Shirish Chandrakant Shah, an accommodation entry provider in Mumbai, it was observed that huge amounts

COMMR.OF INCOME TAX-I,NEW DELHI vs. VATIKA TOWNSHIP P.LTD

Appeals of the assessees are allowed deleting the surcharge levied by the

69, 69A, 69B and 69C shall, so far as may be, apply and references to financial year in those sections shall be construed as references to the relevant previous year falling in the block period including the previous year ending with the date of search or of the requisition. (3) The burden of proving to the satisfaction of the Assessing

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LAXMAN DAS KHANDELWAL

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

69 of 1961 Act. Rs.15,09,672/- was added on account of unexplained jewellery. Rupees 45,00,000/- was added on account of unexplained hundies and Rs.29,53,631/- was added on account of unexplained cash receipts. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner Income Tax (Appeal). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) deleted an amount of Rs.7

MANISH MAHESHWARI vs. ASSTT.COMMNR.OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are allowed

69 as unexplained investment, adding thereto further undisclosed profit earned on sale of flats. To our mind, what the A.O. did is beyond the scope of sec. 158BD. No addition can be made in any of the assessment year of the block period regarding which no material or information is available with the A.O. In a case, where any material

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

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

69,314/- was shown as net profit. Thus, the profits bore a proportion of 49% to the gross sales. For the earlier assessment year, i.e. 1999-2000, the proportion of the net profit to the total sales was as high as 66% because out of the total sales of Rs. 2,97,12,106/- net profits were declared

BASHESHAR NATH vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,DELHI & RAJASTHAN & ANOTHER

The appeal is allowed

reassessment proceeding relating to taxation on income or in any other proceeding before any Court or other authority any matter which forms part of such settlement. (4) Where a settlement has been accepted by Government under sub-section (1), no proceedings under section 34 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (XI of 1922), or under section

SUNDARAM & COMPANY (P.) LTD. MADURAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS

69,396/as its total income. The Income-tax Officer computed the supertax payable by the Company under the Finance Act, 1956, at the rate of six annas and nine pies in the rupee of the total income and granted a rebate at the rate of four annas in the rupee in accordance with the provisions of Cl. D proviso

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

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

69 of 2000 was only prospective and, hence 5 Page 6 JUDGMENT Anti-dumping duty had to be paid for the relevant period. He further submitted that interest in any case was payable as Notification No.30 of 1997 independently levied a charge of interest. Further, he also supported the Commissioner’s order and the Tribunal so far as the various

ROSHAN-DI-HATTI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Reassessment-Burden of proof about source of income--Finding of facts of the Tribunal can be interfered under what circumstances---Conclusion without any materi- als-No person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law would come to determination--Income tax Appellate Tribunal--Whether Tribunal can ask questions to assessee informally--Whether part of record--Income Tax Appellate

M. M. IPOH & ORS. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS

section by Act 7 of 1939, the discretion vested in the Income-tax Officer to select either the income of the association or the individual member is unfettered. By the repeal of s. 23A(1) the essential nature of the power of the Incometax Officer was not altered. He remained as before under a duty to administer