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.

D G M E N T K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. We are concerned with four Criminal Appeals No.61 to 64 of 2007, out of which two Criminal Appeals No.61 of 2007 and 63 of 2007 relate to M/s Sasi Enterprises, a registered partnership firm, of which Ms. J. Jayalalitha and Mrs. N. Sasikala are partners, which relate to the assessment

PRAKASH NATH KHANNA vs. COMMNR OF INCOME TAX

68,039/- is based on no evidence and is contrary to the materials on record. 4. The petitioners in reply to show cause notice issued pleaded that the delay in submission of http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13 returns was unavoidable, because their share of profit from the firm in which they were partners

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

d. Whether the 2014 guidelines are mandatory or directory in nature? E. ANALYSIS i. Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 27. Chapter XXII of the Act deals with offences and prosecutions and consists of Sections 275A to 280D. Section 276CC of the Act inter-alia provides that if a person fails to furnish the return

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

13,70,618 under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, interest, penalty, etc.  53. After   the   receipt   of   the   replies   from   the   assessee,   the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mangalore, held an enquiry and passed an Order­in­Original No. 10/2006 dated 29.05.2006, in and by which, he (i) confirmed the demand of duty

RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD JAIPUR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ASSESSMENT)

In the result, we allow the appeal, set aside the

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

D G M E N T ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. This appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the Division Bench judgment dated 13.11.2007 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur by which D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.837 of 1993 filed by the Revenue has been allowed upholding the demand of additional tax under

M/S. SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, COIMBATORE

68,516/- to the taxable income on the ground that the provision for bad and doubtful debt was not allowable under Section 36(1)(vii) of the IT Act. The appellant claimed that the “Provision for NPA”, however, represented “loss” in the value of assets and was, therefore, allowable under Section 37(1) of the IT Act. This

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

D. Relevant changes brought about to the IT Act, 1961 (Finance Act, 1983 and 1991) 20. It is pertinent to note that the judgment in Surat Art Silk was delivered on 19.11.1979. The expression “not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit” in Section 2(15) of the IT Act, was omitted by the Finance

M/S BISCO LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE

Appeal is allowed in part in the above terms

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

D G M E N T UJJAL BHUYAN, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is a statutory appeal under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962 (briefly the ‘Customs Act’ hereinafter) against the final order dated 30.04.2009 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short ‘CESTAT’ hereinafter) in Customs Appeal

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

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

D G M E N T M. M. Sundresh, J. 1. The present appeal is filed by the Revenue, challenging the decision of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur, drawing a distinction between a claim for deduction of a loss incurred in an illegal business, as against a claim of a loss qua a legitimate business

SHARP BUSINESS SYSTEM THR. FINANCE DIRECTOR MR. YOSHIHISA MIZUNO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III N.D

The appeals are hereby disposed of in terms of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

D. No. 22308/2022 has been filed by the revenue against the judgment and order dated 11.01.2022 passed by the Madras High Court dismissing Tax Case (Appeal) No. 600 of 2010 (CIT, Chennai Vs. M/s. Pentasoft Technologies Limited) of the revenue for the assessment year 2001-02. 5. The perennial question of whether an expenditure incurred by an assessee is capital

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI vs. TULSYAN NEC LTD

13% 68,586,949 8,916,303 68,586,950 8,916,304 Total tax payable 77,503,252 77,503,254 Less: Set-off of MAT credit Less: TDS Less: Advance Tax 54,015,189 5,231,557 19,316,900 4,198,191 19,316,900 Balance tax payable 1,060,394 53,988,163 Interest under 234B

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

GENPACT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

D G M E N T Uday Umesh Lalit, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises out of the final judgment and order dated 19.08.2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition No.686 of 2017. 3. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal, in brief, are as under

DILIP N. SHROFF vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI &ANR

The appeal is allowed

d) an Explanation cannot in any way interfere with or change the enactment or any part thereof but where some gap is left which is relevant for the purpose of the Explanation, in order to suppress the mischief and advance the object of the Act it can help or assist the Court in interpreting the true purport and intendment

M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

68,94,982.00 was the income in respect of which inaccurate particulars had been furnished. The tax was computed at Rs. 31,71,692.00. It was held that the tax sought to be evaded was Rs. 31,71,692.00 and imposed penalty of Rs. 31,71,692.00 (100% of the tax). The Commissioner of Income Tax confirmed the order

M/S.JASWAL NECO LTD. vs. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, VISAKHAPATNAM

D G M E N T R.F. Nariman, J. 1. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of pig iron. The appellant imported Low Ash Metallurgical (LAM) Coke under seven Bills of Entry, against four advance licenses without payment of basic customs duty (BCD) levied under Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962, special customs duty (SCD) levied under

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

13. Kingdom of Netherlands 14. Republic of Singapore 15. Kingdom of Sweden 16. India-Taipei Association in Taipei (Taiwan) 17. United States of America 18. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 41. Insofar as is material, each of these DTAAs is based on the OECD Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital, and are therefore substantially similar

M/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. (UNIT BHILAI STEEL PLANT) ISPAT BHAWAN . THROUGH ITS SR. MANAGER (F AND A) vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE RAIPUR

Bench: Us. 2. Very Briefly Put, The Question Which We Are Called Upon To Consider & Resolve Is As To Whether Interest Is Payable On The Differential Excise Duty With Retrospective Effect That Become Payable On The Basis Of Escalation Clause Under Section 11Ab Of The Central Excise Act, 1944 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). 3. In This Batch Of Appeals, We Will Treat C.A. No.2150/2012 As The Leading Case. We Will Refer To The Said Case As The Sail Case. In The Said Case Originally, The Appellant Company Which Is Manufacturer Of Various Products Including Rail

68 to determine the tax payable and issue a notice of demand. In the absence of any assessment, even provisional, and a notice of demand no interest would be payable under Section 24(3). …” 34. Section 24(1) incidentally provided for a notice of assessment save as it was otherwise provided in Section 13