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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANJEET PUROHIT

3 of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and whether the same would empower the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess

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

3) 9 STRP NO. 08 OF 2022 AND CONNECTED MATTERS 45 jurisdiction under Section 29 of the Act because in the case on hand as far as Nokia was concerned, the phone charger was sold as a separate accessory and, therefore, Apex Court held that it is not part of mobile phone. The battery was supplied with mobile phone

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,BHUWAN GOYAL

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 18.11.2016. The respondent

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

reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened

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

In the result, the impugned orders of the

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR

SECTION 66(1) OF THE KVAT ACT, 2003 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.01.2020 PASSED IN NO.ADCOM/ZONE-II/APP-1/SMR/CR-03/2019-20 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES ZONE-II, GANDHINAGAR BANGALORE SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.05.2016 PASSED IN VAT AP NO.59/15-16 BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS) 1 BANGALORE PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE REASSESSMENT

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

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 of the Act is valid or not in the facts and circumstances

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

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