K. Ranjeet Mohan, vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax,

reopen the assessment under section 147(b) by virtue of proposition (4) of Kalyanji Mavji. The fact that the details of the sales of house property

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S Sri Krishna Drugs Ltd.,

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

reopened the assessment for assessment years 1992-93 to 1998-99 alleging that the assessee knew that higher amount (than the actual rent) was payable as rent in respect of the premises and the assessment was completed on the basis of enhanced annual letting value. The addition sought to be made for the years previous to the year when

M/s. Sathavahana Ispat Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

reopen the assessment on the ground that the ALV was wrongly fixed at a lesser rate as the rent payable was higher, which was, in fact, received by the assessee and therefore, the ALV should have been fixed at the contractual rent. The additions on this basis were made by the Assessing Officer after re-assessment relating to assessment years

The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) vs. M/s.Madhu Enterprises

Bench: The Learned

reopened the assessment on the basis that the records of South Delhi Municipal Corporation [SDMC] indicated that the Assessee owned more than one residential property on the date of the transfer of the shares of FIITJEE Ltd. [the original asset] being the basement and second floor of the property bearing address D-6/5, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. According

M/s. PLL-Suncon Joint Venture vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

property. The arbitrator relied on upon the provision in Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1998. Consequently, the award made by the arbitrator insofar as it pertains to house no. B-5/13, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi also could not be challenged, and to that extent the challenge to the awards was repelled. 28. Therefore, the learned single judge recorded that

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

house” does not lead to the discovery of a knife; knives were discovered many years ago. It leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant

Comissioner of Income Tax, vs. P. Ramakrishna Prasad (HUF),

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

assessed by Salary Circle-Eranakulam. From out of his savings he had not only discharged the said balance of price but also subsequently having served in the said Company which was taken over by TATAs, for 20 long years, he had accumulated Provident Fund and Gratuity with which he had not only improved the schedule property but purchased Lower Gowankan

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s Indur Green Power Private Limited

In the result, all the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

property, credits and liabilities of the Company; and, subject to any reasonable restrictions as to the time and manner of inspecting the same that may be imposed in accordance with the regulations of the Company for the time being in force, the accounts shall be open to the inspection of the members. Once at least in every year, the accounts

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

properties as alleged. It is submitted that similar submissions were made by HVL before the Joint APLs which is evidenced by the Minutes of the meeting dated 21st July, 2017, similar stand was taken in his affidavit-in-opposition to the administrator's proceedings filed by the respondents in 2008 which culminated in judgment of the Division Bench dated 23rd