← All Phrases

“Section 28(4)”

Section References (mined)Section 28Section 28(4)6 judgments

RAGHU BELAGODU(HUF),BENGALURU vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU - 2 , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 946/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Smt. Pratibha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 27Section 43Section 47Section 96

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

VAIDYA SRIKANTAPPA SADASHIVAIAH SRIKANTH,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE- 1, , BANGALORE

ITA 200/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2024AY 2018-19
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 45(5)Section 54

provisions of Sections\n28(4) and 28(5) of the KIAD Act, it is clear that on the publication of the\nNotification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act i.e. from 30-3-2004, the\nland in question vested in the State free from all encumbrances by operation ... land, which shall thereupon vest\nabsolutely in the - 26 - Government, free from all encumbrances.'\n30. On a comparison of the aforesaid provisions, namely, Section 28(4)\nand 28(5) of the KIAD Act with Section 16 of the said Act, it is clear that the\nland which is subject

HERO MOTOCORP LTD (AS SUCCESSOR OF HERO INVESTMENT P.LTD),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 11(1), NEW DELHI

The appeal is allowed

ITA 1053/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANUBHAV

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SANJAY KISHANLAL BISHNOI,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 297/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Sh. Umedsingh Bhati & Sh. Abhimanyu SinghFor Respondent: Sh. Subhendu Das, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 253(3)Section 69C

facts and therefore, the differential customs duty is liable to be recovered by invoking the provisions of the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 (erstwhile proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962). 14. In view of the facts discussed ... payable on the watermelon seeds imported by them is liable to be recovered from the importer M/s Bishnoi Trading Corporation, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 (erstwhile proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act 1962) along with applicable interest under Section 28AA

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SANJAY KISHANLAL BISHNOI,, AHMEDABAD

ITA 296/AHD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Sh. Umedsingh Bhati & Sh. Abhimanyu SinghFor Respondent: Sh. Subhendu Das, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 253(3)Section 69C

facts and therefore, the differential customs duty is liable to be recovered by invoking the provisions of the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 (erstwhile proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962). 14. In view of the facts discussed ... payable on the watermelon seeds imported by them is liable to be recovered from the importer M/s Bishnoi Trading Corporation, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 (erstwhile proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act 1962) along with applicable interest under Section 28AA

M/S. HANUMANTHAPPA CHANDRASHEKAR,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1223/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.K.R.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 46Section 96

appellant has not challenged the validity of the aforesaid provisions. Therefore, on a combined reading of the provisions of Sections 28(4) and 28(5) of the KIAD Act, it is clear that on the publication of the Notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act i.e. from ... land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the - 26 - Government, free from all encumbrances.’ 30. On a comparison of the aforesaid provisions, namely, Section 28(4) and 28(5) of the KIAD Act with Section 16 of the said Act, it is clear that the land which is subject