THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JAIPUR vs. PRAKASH CHAND LUNIA (D) THR LRS

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

search at the business premises of the Respondent/assessee. The recovery yielded silver slabs/silver ingots. The assessee was in the business of making jewellery. 5. The Respondent/assessee filed his return for the Assessment Year 1989-1990 followed by a petition before the Income Tax Settlement Commission. The Collector of Customs vide order dated 18.12.1990 ordered confiscation of goods and imposed penalty

M/S ARMOUR SECURITY (INDIA) LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER, CGST, DELHI EAST COMMISSIONERATE

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

search and seizure), section 68 (inspection of goods in movement), section 69 (power to arrest), section 71 (access to business

M/S. K.C.C. SOFTWARE LTD. vs. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV.)

The appeal is dismissed subject to the aforesaid

search and seizure of the bank accounts under Section 132 (3) of the Act and also gave details of demand drafts issued in favour of respondent No.2 withdrawing the money from the accounts of the appellants. 5. On 28.10.2005 the appellants were supplied with copies of the Panchnama. On 29.10.2005 appellant No.1 requested the respondents to adjust towards self assessment

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) 2 vs. M/S MAHAGUN REALTORS (P) LTD

The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

seizure operation u/s. 132 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 was carried out in the hands of the assessee group. During the search incriminating documents/ diaries which contained entries of unaccounted income generated on account of receipt of ‘on money’ etc. were found and on being confronted, Shri Amit Jain, Managing Director of group and the main 27 person

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. LAXMAN DAS KHANDELWAL

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

seizure operation was conducted under Section 132 of the Act of 1961 on 11.03.2010 at his residential premises. The assessee submitted return of income on 24.08.2011, declaring total income of Rs.9,35,130/-. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 153(D) of 1961 Act. Rupees 9,09,110/- was added on account of unexplained cash

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

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

seizure operation and not yet returned. CIT(A) further noted that the assessing officer had taken the balance sheet as on 31.03.1989 filed by the assessee before the South Indian Bank as the base for reconciling the accounts of the partners. It was noticed that CIT(A) in an earlier appellate order dated 26.03.2002 for the assessment year

S. RAJENDRAN vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (BENAMI PROHIBITION)

The appeals are dismissed with

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA

search on 18.11.2017 at a serviced apartment used by the intermediary, where authorities recovered the original share certificates of M/s S.V. Sugar Mills Ltd. now Padmaadevi Sugars Ltd. standing in the names of the Patel family members, alongside an unsigned Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). Confronted with this, Shri Hitesh Shivgan Patel, representing the management of the corporate debtor, recorded

GUNWANTLAL GODAWAT vs. UNION OF INDIA CUSTOM AND CENTRAL EXCISE THROUGH COMMISSIONER

The appeals are disposed of as indicated above

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR

search any premises, not being a refinery or establishment referred to in sub-rule (1), vaults, lockers or any other place whether above or below ground; (b) seize any gold in respect of which he suspects that any provision of this Part has been, or is being, or is about to be contravened, along with the package, covering or receptacle

M/S D. N. SINGH THROUGH PARTNER DUDHESHWAR NATH SINGH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

seizure. This should be reported to the Director of Income- tax/Commissioner authorising the search at the time of furnishing the search report. In all cases, a detailed inventory of the jewellery and ornaments found must be prepared to be used for assessment purposes.” K. R. B. JODHA MAL DISTINGUISHED BY HIGH COURT 50. The High Court has distinguished the judgment

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

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

68 of 161 he was a Customs officer under the Customs Act. In addition, that he was entrusted with the functions of the proper officer under Section 6 of the Customs Act. The Additional Director General of the DRI can be considered to be a Customs officer only if he is shown to have been appointed as Customs officer under

THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX, CALICUT vs. M/S. CERA BOARD AND DOORS, KANNUR, KERALA

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN

seizure   of material was effected, filed six appeals before the CESTAT. 28. By Final Order Nos. 414­419/2009 dated 21.04.2009, the CESTAT (i) allowed the three appeals filed by the assessee, its Managing Director and Sales Manager challenging the demand for  differential   duty,  interest   and  penalty,  and  remanded  the matter for re­quantification of duty in light of the findings given

KOTHARI FILAMENTS vs. COMMR.OF CUSTOMS (PORT) KOLKATA

Appeal is allowed with the aforementioned directions with costs

search and seizure was carried out and on examination, it was found that 189 poly bags out of 860 poly bags contained a white coloured chemical and the remaining 671 poly bags contained a yellow coloured chemical. The estimated value of the mis-declared item was estimated at Rs.1,02,97,166/-. 4. A notice under Section

COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD vs. M/S. ALDEC CORPORATION

Appeals are dismissed, with

seizure, the officers visited the premises of M/s Aldec Corporation and also premises of M/s VPI and M/s SREW under the authority of the search warrant. As a follow-up, the department issued show-cause notice on 27.3.1995 alleging purchase of aluminium sheets from M/s Hindalco Industries Ltd. and paint from M/s Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd., which, the department alleged

B.M.MALANI vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed accordingly to the aforementioned extent

seizure to meet the tax liabilities and oblige.” 2 Indisputably, the said request of the appellant was not acceded to. However, the fact that such an offer had been made by the appellant is not denied or disputed. It is furthermore not disputed that the Income Tax Department demanded and recovered a sum of Rs.40 lakhs in between the period

GASTRADE INTERNATIONAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

seizure of the sample by the DRI, the sample was received by you? Adjudicating Authority intervened and said that this is a matter of record and it is a sheer wastage of time of Adjudicating Authority and the person whose cross examination is being done. Q: What is the standard specification for testing the samples