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

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: INDRAJIT MAHANTY,SATISH KUMAR SHARMA

4) The limits of the basic property tax rates fixed by the Government under sub-section (2) and subject thereto to the basic property tax rates fixed once by the Municipality under sub-section (3), which shall be in force for a period of five years from the date of its effect, however, five per cent of the effective

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. SHRINATH CORPORATION

Bench: PANKAJ BHANDARI,PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

4. The learned Single Judge held that, in view of Section 153(7) of the Act, the notice dated 06.11.2020 was barred by limitation and accordingly quashed the same. The learned Single Judge further directed the Assessing Officer to consider the assessee’s claim for refund. 5. Sri E.I. Sanmathi, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants–Revenue, submits

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

4) of Section 139 of the IT Act, at the relevant time, provided an outer time-limit till 31-3-2017 to the assessee to file return of income for the assessment year 2016-17. Further, the said return of income was duly processed on 21-1-2017 vide an intimation order issued under the provisions of Section

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

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record. 8 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

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,BHUWAN GOYAL

reassessment proceedings and allowed [2024:RJ-JP:18621-DB] (2 of 2) [ITA-294/2018] the appeal, the other ground raised with regard to the nature of Education Cess was not gone into. 3. On 28.02.2019, the appeal was admitted by formulating following substantial question of law:- “Whether the facts and in the circumstances of the case

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANJEET PUROHIT

Section 148 notice. 3. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“Tribunal”] ultimately bore in consideration the decision of the Court in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2011 SCC OnLine Del 2612] to hold that the reassessment shall stand confined to items which had been mentioned or taken note of by the AO while forming the opinion that income

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 23.02.2015 WAS PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT AND RECOVERY) 1.3 DVO 1 BANGALORE UNDER SECTION 39(1) OF THE KVAT ACT, 2003 FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009 -2010. -: 4

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

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

4 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION [INCOME TAX] ORIGINAL SIDE ITA/59/2021 MBL INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED VS. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-1, KOLKATA BEFORE : THE HON’BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 26th April, 2023 Appearance : Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sauyma Kejriwal, Adv. Ms. Ananya Routy

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

4. Learned counsel for the corporation submitted that the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.444/2014 erred in assessing the income of the deceased. In this regard, it is submitted that the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.444/2014 erred in not deducting income tax and professional tax from the income of the deceased and that only the basic pay as contained in Ex.P27 Pay Slip