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

5 of 1964 and it came into effect w.e.f. 1-4-1964. Both sections require that the subject-matter of the provisions viz. investments in the case of Section 69 and money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles in the case of Section 69-A are not recorded in the books of accounts. That is, in a case where books

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

5 SCC 747 3 (2004) 10 SCC 627 4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 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

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

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

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 - I vs. SHRI ARVIND GOTEWAL S/O SHREERAM GOTEWAL

The appeals are allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

5. Learned counsel for the Revenue contends that the Tribunal has committed an error in relying on the judgment in Lancy’s case. He contends that the Hon’ble Court in the case of CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY V/s. DCIT reported in 274 CTR 122 (KARNATAKA) has laid down the law with regard to the same. We have considered

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

Bench: INDERJEET SINGH,VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

5. Opposing the appeal, Shri. T. Suryanarayan, Shri. K. Arvind Kamath, Shri. Sandeep Huilgol, learned Senior Advocates and other Advocates for respective assessees, in substance, contented that:  once the goods are manufactured/imported and cleared by classifying them under a particular HSN10 Code, then the only question that needs determination for VAT classification is whether the said goods is listed

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants in M.V.C.No.444/2014 that the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased and that the amount of the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is on the lower side and the same deserves to be enhanced suitably. It is further submitted that in M.V.C.No.445/2014 the Tribunal