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

1) or section 148 or section 153A/153C as the case may be, existing on the date of conveyance of compounding charges to the applicant, determined after rectification u/s 154 of the Act, if any and as reduced by the tax deducted at source and advance tax, if any, paid during the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year, reckoned from

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHELF DRILLING RON TAPPMEYER LIMITED

The appeals are allowed

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

1) of section 253 so as to include an order of assessment passed under sub-section (3) of section 143 in pursuance of directions of “Dispute Resolution Panel” as an appealable order. These amendments will take effect from 1st October, 2009. [Clauses 49,55,71,72]” (underlining by me) Page 46 of 112 (iii) Notes on Clauses Clause

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

1) of Section 132 of the Act are not satisfied. Since the view of the High Court is based upon established principles of law, no case for interference is made out in the present appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Datar referred to the following judgments, namely, Seth Brothers & Ors. etc.; Vindhya Metal Corporation & Ors; Ajit

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

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

72,212/- 1993-94 (Figures not available from assessment records.) Rs.68,30,270/- Rs.3,83,925/- Thus, the profit for the three years would be Rs. 1,86, 57, 246/- (1,14,43,051 + 68,30,270 + 3,83,925). Under assessment of income for the three years is, therefore, Rs.1,69,92,728 i.e., (18657246 – 1664518). The sales estimated

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

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

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

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

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

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

1) of the Act was also sent to the assessee.   Thereafter, the case of the assessee was taken   up   for   consideration   and   final   assessment   order   was passed on 03.08.2012.   3. We are mainly concerned with that part of the assessment order   which   relates   to   the   issue   of   step­up   coupon   bonds amounting to US$100 million.  These bonds were issued

INDIAN AND EASTERN NEWSPAPER SOCIETY NEW DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

reassess such income. The internal audit organisation of the income tax department, in the course of auditing the income tax records pertaining to the assessee for certain assessment years stated that the assessee’s income on account of letting out of halls and rooms should not have been assessed as income from business but an assessment should have been made

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

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, U.P. vs. GURBUX RAI HARBUX RAI

reassessment of excess profits tax. Under s. 15, if in consequence of definite information which has come into his possession, the Excess Profits Tax Officer discovers that the profits of any chargeable accounting period have escaped assessment, he may serve a notice on the assessee and proceed to assess the profits liable to excess profits tax. In the present case

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

reassessment were properly commenced. The High Court accordingly by order dated, April 3, 1961 answered the first question in favour of the assessee in respect of the assess- ment year 1951-52 and against the assessee for the subsequent five assessment years. The High Court recorded in answer to the second question that the Income-tax Officer was justified