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 vs. SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANJEET PUROHIT

13, 14 and 15 of the report and which are extracted hereinbelow:- xxxx xxxx xxxx 29. In our considered opinion, and bearing in mind the import of Explanation 3 as well as the language in which Section 147 of the Act stands couched, we find no justification to differ from the legal position which had been enunciated in Ranbaxy Laboratories

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

3 SCC 378 Page 11 of 17 (Tax Case No.8/2024) (c) The said articles must not be recorded in the books of accounts, if any maintained; (d) The assessee is unable to offer an explanation regarding the nature and the source of acquiring the articles in question; or The explanation, which is offered, is found to be, in the opinion

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 vs. PALSANA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED

Bench: INDERJEET SINGH,VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

13. The Notification No. FD 43 CSL 07(02) dated April 4, 2007 is similar to the Entry in Heading 8517 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 198514 and the Customs Tariff Act, 197515, which reads as: “Telephone sets, including telephones in cellular network, or for other wireless networks and other apparatus for the transmission or reception of voice, imagers

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 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

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 in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

3. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the Tribunal, framed the issues and recorded the evidence. The injured claimant examined herself as PW1, Sudhakanth (PW2), Anjaneya (PW3), Chandan (PW4), Ananditha (PW5) and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P30 respectively. The respondents examined KM Prakash (RW1) and got marked documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R9 on their behalf. The Tribunal

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

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 of posh colonies such