RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are disposed of

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR

reassessed on the basis of income of the Injured for the relevant year i.e. Assessment Year 2008-09. The multiplier of 17 applied by the Tribunal is appropriate. However, while computing the compensation payable on account of the disability suffered due to the accident in question, the Tribunal has erred in not making any addition

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIOENR OF INCOME TAX-I vs. NILESH AGARWAL HUF

The appeal stands disposed of in terms of

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Acting Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 26Th April, 2023 Appearance : Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sauyma Kejriwal, Adv. Ms. Ananya Routy, Adv. Ms. Pritha Basu, Adv. Ms. Ankita Agrahari, Adv … For Appellant Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. … For Respondent The Court : This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Order Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Legal Issue Involved In The Instant Case Is The Scope Of Assessment Under Section 153A Of The Income Tax Act. The Legal Issue Which Has Been Raised By The Revenue Has Been Answered By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-3 Vs. Abhisar Buildwell [P] Ltd. Reported In [2023] 149 Taxmann.Com 399 [Sc]. The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Has Summarised The Legal Position In Paragraph 11 Of The Judgment & In Paragraph 13 The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Has Held That It Is An Agreement With A View Taken By The Delhi

income declared in the returns; and iv] in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ANKIT CHIRAG DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above, leaving

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,MADAN GOPAL VYAS

addition of ₹ 23,00,000/- treating it as unexplained money invoking the deeming fiction engrafted under Section 69A of the IT Act charging the same to higher rate of tax as prescribed under Section 115BBE of the IT Act ascribing the following reasons: - 1. Purpose of making cash withdrawal in the assessment year 2015-16 and holding the cash balance

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JODHPUR vs. GAJ SINGH

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

income of the deceased comes to Rs.4,49,698/-. Therefore, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.79,95,168/- (Rs.4,49,698/- x 16) under the head 'Loss of dependency'. 8. In view of laid down by the Supreme Court in ‘MAGMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. NANU RAM & ORS.’ (2018) 18 SCC 130, which has been subsequently clarified

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHREE CEMENT LIMITED

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,BHUWAN GOYAL

Income Tax Act, 1961(for short the “Act”). 2. Brief facts are that the respondent-Company for assessment year (for short “AY”) filed the returns and the assessment was framed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The proceedings were initiated under Section 148 on the basis that the appellant has wrongly debited the Education Cess in the profit

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (TDS)

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

Income Tax Officer, Salary Circle[39]) and not prior thereto.Any expenditure which the Government incurs, in implementing its policies, should be authorized by the Appropriation Act which is a law as contemplated by Article 282 (Bhim Singh[31]; S. Subramaniam Balaji[36] and Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur[38]) which stipulates that the Union or the States may make

M/S S B L PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 72 JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: INDRAJIT MAHANTY,SATISH KUMAR SHARMA

income, sales tax, excise duties, customs duties and local taxes and any impost of like nature, whether Central, State or local, charged, levied or imposed on the goods, materials, equipment and services incorporated in and forming part of the Central Bus Terminal Complex, on the construction, operation and maintenance thereof and on the project assets, excluding interest and penalties. Clause

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

additional market value under Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended