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

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

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

reassessment notice under Section 148 of the IT Act, which as per the provisions of Section 149 of the IT Act, provided for an outer time limit of six years from the end of the relevant assessment year i.e. till 31-3-2023, particularly when the assertion of the source of cash deposit tracing it to closing balance

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

reassess or issue said notice. Decision of Nokia will not apply to facts of this case.” (Emphasis Supplied) 18. As noticed hereinabove, in Entry No. 60(6)(g) of the Punjab VAT Act, the expression used is ‘cellular telephone’ whereas in the Notification issued under KVAT Act, the words used are ‘and parts thereof’. Further, the parts falling under Heading

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANJEET PUROHIT

reassessment action itself having been validly initiated. 32. Explanation 3, cannot consequently be read as enabling the AO to attempt to either deviate from the reasons originally recorded for initiating action under Section 147/148 of the Act nor can those Explanations be read as empowering the AO to improve upon, supplement or supplant the reasons which formed This

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

Section 153A is not dependent on any undisclosed income being unearthed during such search.” 6. Therefore, the position of law is quite clear. The Tribunal was of the view that the latest judgment in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V/S. LANCY CONSTRUCTIONS reported in (2016) 66 9 taxmann.com 264 (KARNATAKA) was valid since it is the latest judgment

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

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

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,BHUWAN GOYAL

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 failed in first appeal. The Tribunal quashed the initiation

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

Bench: SANGEET LODHA,VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the 15 payment is made. To the aforesaid extent judgment passed by the Tribunal in M.V.C.No.444/2014, is modified. 9. Now we may advert to the quantum of compensation in M.V.C.No.445/2014. The Supreme Court in the case of THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. KAHLON @ JASMAIL SINGH