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

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. M/S SHREE CEMENT LIMITED

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,BHUWAN GOYAL

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 and loss account. In other words, the appellant has claimed Education Cess as business expense. The addition of Rs. 6,30,40,519/- was made by Assessing Officer vide order dated

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

143(2) and 142 were issued and served on the assessee. 6 3. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax. The appeal was partly allowed. Questioning the same, appeals were preferred before the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the appeals on technical aspects as to whether the invocation of the provisions of Section 153A

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