MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land of posh colonies such as Maharani Bagh, Kalindi Colony, Siddhartha Nagar Extension, Sunlight Colony, Jiwan Nagar, Desu Colony, Jangpura and Rajdoot

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,RAMESHWAR VYAS

reassessment of such property taxes was made, and the amount of tax to be levied and collected was determined under sub-section (1). The proviso thereto required the Corporation to pay simple interest, at the rate of six percent per annum, on the amount of excess liable to be refunded under Sub-section (2), from the date of the decree

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENRAL vs. SHRI NIRMAL KUMAR KEDIA

In the result, the impugned orders of the

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

REASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22.01.2020 PASSED IN ADCOM/ZONE-II/APP-1/SMR/CR-27/2019-20 BY ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, GANDHINAGAR BENGALURU, ORDER, SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.05.2016 PASSED IN VAT.AP.NO.65/15-16 ON THE FILE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS)- 1, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST ORDER DATED 10.06.2015 PASSED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, (ADUIT

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, JAIPUR vs. SHRI SURENDRA MEENA

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16, which were commenced by issuance of the notice dated 28.06.2021 under Section 148 of the Act. 2. The Assessee is a national political party and is registered with the Election Commission of India [ECI] by a certificate dated 10.01.2000. The Assessee filed its return of income on 29.02.2016, declaring a Nil income, after claiming

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: INDRAJIT MAHANTY,SATISH KUMAR SHARMA

reassessment of tax: Provided that at the time of revision of such annual property tax the exemptions or increases under sub-section (7) shall not apply. (5) The rates of basic property tax fixed by the Council for the first time under sub-section (3) shall come in to force on such date as the Government may, by notification, appoint

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PALSANA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED

Bench: INDERJEET SINGH,VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

11. Now, we shall analyse Entry 53 of Schedule III of the KVAT Act read with the Notification No. FD 43 CSL 07(02) dated April 4, 2007 issued by the State Government, which is for consideration in these present Revision Petitions before us. 12. Entry 53 of Schedule III of the KVAT Act reads thus: “IT Products including telecommunication

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

11 of the judgment and in paragraph 13 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is an agreement with a view taken by the Delhi 2 High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax [Central]-III vs. Kabul Chawla reported in [2016] 380 ITR 573 [Delhi] and that of the High Court of Gujarat

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Section 306 of the Indian Evidence Act (sic Indian Succession Act) is based cannot have an applicability in all actions even in an case of personal injuries where damages flows from the head or under the head of loss to the estate. Therefore, even after the death of the injured claimant, claim petition does not abate and right

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - I vs. SHRI ARVIND GOTEWAL S/O SHREERAM GOTEWAL

The appeals are allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 153A is not dependent on any undisclosed income being unearthed during such search.” 6. Therefore, the position of law is quite clear. The Tribunal was of the view that the latest judgment in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V/S. LANCY CONSTRUCTIONS reported in (2016) 66 9 taxmann.com 264 (KARNATAKA) was valid since it is the latest judgment