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

Bench: INDERJEET SINGH,VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

2) TMI 1247 9 (2017) 77 Taxman.com 219 (All) STRP NO. 08 OF 2022 AND CONNECTED MATTERS 36 similar to the facts in Nokia India Case. In the Samsung India Case, the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad has interpreted the provisions contained in Article 366(29A) of the Constitution of India which mainly relates to the transfer of goods

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

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

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANJEET PUROHIT

2 of 5 dated 12 February 2024 on the following question of law:- “A. Whether Ld. ITAT has erred on the facts and circumstances of the case in not appreciating Explanation 3 of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and whether the same would empower the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess

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

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

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

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

2. Facts leading to the filing of these appeals as well as cross objections briefly stated are that on 06.04.2014, the injured claimant GJ Latha and the deceased Jai Kishan sustained injuries in the accident which occurred near the JMIT Circle, Chitradurga when they were traveling in a car bearing Registration No.KA-01-MB-5197, due to the negligence

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 KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT 2003 AGAINST THE 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

MAMTA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SHUBHA MEHTA

2 (2010) 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