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),— (a) any income is excluded from the total income of the assessee

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.

72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub- section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, or sub- section (3) of section 74A, he may furnish, within the time allowed under sub-section (1), a return of loss in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and containing such other particulars as may be prescribed

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

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

reassess under Section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessees under Section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before 01.04.2001. Thus, all concluded transactions prior to 01.04.2001 were made final and not allowed to be re­opened. 36. The memorandum of explanation explaining

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

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

Section 6 is the only Section which provides for entrustment of functions of Customs officer on other officers of the Central or the State Government or local authority, it reads as follows:- “6. Entrustment of functions of Board and customs officers on certain other officers. - The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, entrust either conditionally or unconditionally

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

NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO

72%   of   their   original   investment. According to the assessing officer “The natural inference could be that it was NDTV’s own funds introduced in NNPLC in the grab of the impugned bonds.”   The details of the investors are given in this communication giving reasons.  Mention has also been made of complaints received from a minority shareholder in which

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

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

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

Appeals are disposed of

72) 32 Page 33 JUDGMENT 20. We also find that the assessees’ argument that there is no charge to tax of works contracts in the Finance Act, 1994 is correct in view of what has been stated above. 21. This Court in Mathuram Agrawal v. State of M.P., (1999) 8 SCC 667, held:- “Another question that arises for consideration

PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) vs. LALJIBHAI KANJIBHAI MANDALIA

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

reassessment of Income under the Act or its predecessor statute, the Essential Commodities Act, 1955; the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 as well as in respect of action of the Revenue in the matter of 9 (2000) 242 ITR 302 (Del.) 10 (2003) 260 ITR 80 (SC) 11 (2005) 278 ITR 36 (Bom.) 12 (2021) 433 ITR 203 (Telangana