Commissioner of Income Tax- IT and TP vs. M/s. Louis Berger International Inc.,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

1) to Rule 3 is not applicable and transaction value is determined in terms of Rules 4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. 16.6. The proper officer can raise doubts as to the truth or accuracy Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s. Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

1) to Rule 3 is not applicable and transaction value is determined in terms of Rules 4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. 16.6. The proper officer can raise doubts as to the truth or accuracy Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page

Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur. vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Kangiri.

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

17. (1980) 121 ITR 1 (SC) : (1980) 2 SCC 31 18. (1986) 159 ITR 1 (SC) 19. (1964) 52 ITR

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

17. (1980) 121 ITR 1 (SC) : (1980) 2 SCC 31 18. (1986) 159 ITR 1 (SC) 19. (1964) 52 ITR

COMM.OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE vs. NAVABHARAT ENTERPRISES HYD

In the result, Income Tax Appeal No

Bench: This Court & Hence Both Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Decided By This Common Judgment. 2. Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Rahul Agarwal, Advocate Have Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Sri Manish Goel, Advocate Has Put In Appearance On Behalf Of Revenue. 3. Revenue'S Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- (1)Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Tribunal Was Right In Holding That Authorization For Search

1,08,195/- (c) Unreconciled stock of Supari Rs. 70,99,839/- (d) Unexplained investment in cloth Rs. 5,04,000/- (e) Unexplained investment in trucks Rs. 10,50,000/- (f) Income of the assessee from 1.4.96 to 28.11.1996 Rs. 38,70,219/- (g) Unexplained investment in house property No. 133/225 Rs. 3,40,000/- 16. Assessee preferred appeal against

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Nara Constructions,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

property and to contract and by that name, sue and be sued. The object with which the National Housing Bank (herein after referred to as NHB/ Bank for short] was established is to provide long term finance for construction and/or purchase of residential housing or residential township-cum-housing development or slum clearance projects. The entire capital

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s Pokarna Limited

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

section 80-IA(4)(iii). 17. The Apex Court had an occasion to consider the question whether rental income from shops and stalls to constitute income from house property or business income under the old Act. In the case of East India Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd. –vs- - - 31 Commissioner of Income Tax reported

The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) vs. Madhu Enterprises

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

17. Tax payable:- ...... (3) If the amount calculated under sub-section(1) is a negative quantum- (a) the same shall be adjusted against the tax liability, if any, under the Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. (b) any amount of credit, remaining even after such adjustment shall be carried forward to the next tax period

S.l. Shiva Raj vs. Commissioner of Income Tax,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

17. Tax payable:- ...... (3) If the amount calculated under sub-section(1) is a negative quantum- (a) the same shall be adjusted against the tax liability, if any, under the Act as well as under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. (b) any amount of credit, remaining even after such adjustment shall be carried forward to the next tax period

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD vs. SMT.M.VIJAYA, HYDERABAD

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

17 of 55) [COAP-21/2016] 6. 7. Omesh Sehgal S/o Pawan Kumar Sehgal, R/o B 1/36, Hauz Khas Enclave New Delhi 110016 M/s New Way Retails Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 1,3Rd Floor, Garg Trade Centre, Section 11, Rohini 110085 Through Its Director I Suresh Malik S/o Munshi Ram Malik, A-10/49 Sector 18 Rohini, Delhi

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD vs. SRI V.CHENNA KESAVA RAO

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

17 of 55) [COAP-21/2016] 6. 7. Omesh Sehgal S/o Pawan Kumar Sehgal, R/o B 1/36, Hauz Khas Enclave New Delhi 110016 M/s New Way Retails Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 1,3Rd Floor, Garg Trade Centre, Section 11, Rohini 110085 Through Its Director I Suresh Malik S/o Munshi Ram Malik, A-10/49 Sector 18 Rohini, Delhi

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYD vs. M/S CONEXANT SYSTEMS INDIA PVT.LTD., HYD

Bench: SUREPALLI NANDA,UJJAL BHUYAN

17 of 55) [COAP-21/2016] 6. 7. Omesh Sehgal S/o Pawan Kumar Sehgal, R/o B 1/36, Hauz Khas Enclave New Delhi 110016 M/s New Way Retails Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 1,3Rd Floor, Garg Trade Centre, Section 11, Rohini 110085 Through Its Director I Suresh Malik S/o Munshi Ram Malik, A-10/49 Sector 18 Rohini, Delhi

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. M/S. CONEXANT SYSTEMS INDIA PVT.LTD., HYD

Bench: SUREPALLI NANDA,UJJAL BHUYAN

17 of 55) [COAP-21/2016] 6. 7. Omesh Sehgal S/o Pawan Kumar Sehgal, R/o B 1/36, Hauz Khas Enclave New Delhi 110016 M/s New Way Retails Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 1,3Rd Floor, Garg Trade Centre, Section 11, Rohini 110085 Through Its Director I Suresh Malik S/o Munshi Ram Malik, A-10/49 Sector 18 Rohini, Delhi

THE PRL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYD vs. M/S. AMR INDIA LTD., HYD

Bench: SUREPALLI NANDA,UJJAL BHUYAN

17 of 55) [COAP-21/2016] 6. 7. Omesh Sehgal S/o Pawan Kumar Sehgal, R/o B 1/36, Hauz Khas Enclave New Delhi 110016 M/s New Way Retails Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 1,3Rd Floor, Garg Trade Centre, Section 11, Rohini 110085 Through Its Director I Suresh Malik S/o Munshi Ram Malik, A-10/49 Sector 18 Rohini, Delhi

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1, HYDERABAD vs. AP STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVP CORP LTD, HYDERABAD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

17 of 55) [COAP-21/2016] 6. 7. Omesh Sehgal S/o Pawan Kumar Sehgal, R/o B 1/36, Hauz Khas Enclave New Delhi 110016 M/s New Way Retails Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 1,3Rd Floor, Garg Trade Centre, Section 11, Rohini 110085 Through Its Director I Suresh Malik S/o Munshi Ram Malik, A-10/49 Sector 18 Rohini, Delhi

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TIRUPATHI vs. M/S. DIVYA TRANSPORT, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

17 of 55) [COAP-21/2016] 6. 7. Omesh Sehgal S/o Pawan Kumar Sehgal, R/o B 1/36, Hauz Khas Enclave New Delhi 110016 M/s New Way Retails Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 1,3Rd Floor, Garg Trade Centre, Section 11, Rohini 110085 Through Its Director I Suresh Malik S/o Munshi Ram Malik, A-10/49 Sector 18 Rohini, Delhi

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD vs. M/S GAYATRI SUGARS LTD, HYDERABAD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

17 of 55) [COAP-21/2016] 6. 7. Omesh Sehgal S/o Pawan Kumar Sehgal, R/o B 1/36, Hauz Khas Enclave New Delhi 110016 M/s New Way Retails Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 1,3Rd Floor, Garg Trade Centre, Section 11, Rohini 110085 Through Its Director I Suresh Malik S/o Munshi Ram Malik, A-10/49 Sector 18 Rohini, Delhi

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), HYD vs. M/S GAYATRI SUGARS LTD, HYD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

17 of 55) [COAP-21/2016] 6. 7. Omesh Sehgal S/o Pawan Kumar Sehgal, R/o B 1/36, Hauz Khas Enclave New Delhi 110016 M/s New Way Retails Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 1,3Rd Floor, Garg Trade Centre, Section 11, Rohini 110085 Through Its Director I Suresh Malik S/o Munshi Ram Malik, A-10/49 Sector 18 Rohini, Delhi