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

The appeals are allowed

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

section in case of a conflict with what is contained in the non obstante clause as stated above. 83. Further, a non obstante clause has to be distinguished from the expression “subject to” where the latter would convey the idea of a provision yielding place to another provision or other provisions to which it is made subject to. Also

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

COMMR. OF INCOME TAX vs. PARMESHWARI DEVI SULTANIA

80 of Code of Civil Procedure on Defendants 6 and 7 and thereafter filed the suit. From the facts, it is quite obvious that the plaintiff would not have filed the suit for partition as there was no dispute to her claim by other relatives but for the fact that gold ornaments were then in the custody of the Income

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

reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped 10 assessments, including the limitation period within which notices can be issued, by its proviso, enacts that: “Provided that no notice under this section shall be issued unless there is information with the Assessing Officer which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the case

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI vs. M/S VIRGO STEEL, BOMBAY

reassess the imported goods for duty if it is found that the assessment made at the time of importation was based on incorrect or false information. Section 142 of the Act found in Chapter XVIII provides for actual recovery of sums due to the Government. A cumulative reading of these provisions found in the Act clearly shows that the jurisdiction

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

The appeal is partly allowed

80-I without taking into consideration the development rebate. The second question related to allowing of depreciation on roads inside the factory at appropriate rates. The Tribunal with regard to second question held that the Bombay High Court itself in the case of Colour Chem Ltd. had taken the view that depreciation should be granted on the roads. The Tribunal

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

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

80-IA/80-IB – it was held that the activities of the assessee do not amount to manufacturing; (2) little consumption of electricity and thus manufacturing is without the aid of 25 power; (3) non-employment of requisite workers in manufacturing process; (4) non-fulfillment of the condition of new plant and machinery; (5) extra- ordinary high profits; (6) abrupt closure

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

The appeal is allowed

Section 4 deals with the composition of the Commission, details whereof are unnecessary for our purpose, Sub-sections (1), (2) and (4) of s. 5 are relevant to the problems before us and must be read : " 5(1). The Central Government may at any time before the 1st day of September 1948 refer to the Commission for investigation and report

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

80,978/- be withdrawn. In appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner it was held that in the circumstances of the case, assessment could be reopened under S. 34(1) (b) on the ground that the income had’ been made the subject of "excessive relief", but only Rs. 77,600/and not the whole amount of Rs. 3,54,716/- which

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

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

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

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