PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL 3 vs. ABHISAR BUILDWELL P. LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

1). Sub-sections (2) and (3) contain provision for assessment of ‘total income’ by the AO. It is submitted that there is a possibility that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the first instance. Section 147 of the Act, 1961 enables the AO to assess or reassess the case and bring to tax such income also. Thus

MODI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MODINAGAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHI

The appeals are allowed in the above

9 of 39 refunded together with the amount of income tax refundable but that a similar provision was not found in Section 214. The learned Judge pointed out, "the express enactment of this provision points it to the conclusion that in its absence, the computation of the interest would ordinarily have to be made by reference to the date

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

9 CIT (A) on other issues arising out of the same impugned assessement order and it is the Revenue which is now in appeal before the ITAT. There is no reason why this one other issue arising from the impugned assessment order cannot also be examined by the CIT (A).” m) The High Court also recorded certain concessions made

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

The appeals are allowed

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

9) The provisions of this section as they stood immediately before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2016, shall apply to and in relation to any order of assessment, reassessment or recomputation made before the 1st day of June, 2016: Page 35 of 112 Provided that where a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub-section

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

Appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions

vi) of sub-section (5) of section 80G or under section 263 or under section 271 or under section 272A or an order passed by him under section 154 amending his order under section 263 or an order passed by a Chief Commissioner or a Director General or a Director under section 272A.” An appeal before the High Court would

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

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

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

vi. DRI officers as proper officers under section 2(34) ................................ 96 vii. Section 4 of the Act, 1962 ...................................................................... 98 viii. Section 6 of the Act, 1962 .................................................................... 106 ix. Observations on the constitutional validity of Section 28 (11) of the Act, 1962 ..................................................................................................... 114 x. Bombay High Court decision in Sunil Gupta (supra) ........................... 123 xi. Amendments made by the Finance

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

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

VI or unabsorbed depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32 shall not be set off against the undisclosed income determined in the block assessment under this Chapter, but may be carried forward for being set off in the regular assessments. Civil Appeal No.________ of 2014 & connected matters Page 17 of 57 (arising out of S.L.P

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

Appeals are disposed of

vi) cannot, however, be excluded. The position of a contractor in relation to a transfer of property in goods in the execution of a works contract is not different from that of a dealer in goods who is liable to pay sales tax on the sale price charged by him from the customer for the goods sold. The said price

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

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

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

9 of Section 14A sub­section (2) and (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).   The statutory scheme   as   delineated   by   Section   14A   has   to   be   understood before correctly appreciating the nature and purport of Rule 8D.  Section 14A was first inserted by Finance Act, 2001 with retrospective   effect   w.e.f.   01.04.1962.     Section   14A   as originally

MANSAROVAR COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

9 of 67 of the Act and the notices were not served in accordance with law? 2. Whether the order made by the ITAT is perverse based on conjectures and surmises and ignorance of evidence and material and has relied upon incorrect facts? 3. Whether the income of the assessee is taxable in India?” At the instance of the Assessees

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL), N. DELHI vs. GUJARAT PERSTORP ELECTRONICS LTD

The appeals are allowed

reassessment under Chapter Heading 4911. According to him, at any rate, the entire value for the consignment which came under Air Way Bill was of Rs. 63.11 lacs (approx) as per Invoice Nos. 1836-02A and 1836-92B dated December 22, 1993 which could not be taken as value of drawings for the reason that the consideration

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. HARI CHAND SHRI GOPAL

reassess the correct amount of duty payable following the provisions of section 11A of the Act http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 15 and the assessee shall pay the deficiency, if any. Rule 173G. Procedure to be followed by the assessee.\027 (1) Every assessee shall keep an account-current with the Commissioner separately for each excisable