The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s.ZENOTECH LABORATORIES LIMITED

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

reassess the 'total income' of the aforementioned six years in separate assessment orders for each of the six years. In other words there will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six AYs "in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax". iv. Although Section 153 A does not say that

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

additions were deleted. The revenue’s appeal to the ITAT was rejected by the impugned order. 4. The assumption of jurisdiction to re-assess the income had been upheld by the CIT (A); this was challenged by the assessee, in its cross objections. The assessee argued that there was no failure on its part to disclose fully and truly

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

reassessment would have to be founded on justiciable grounds was an aspect which was also duly highlighted by the Supreme Court in Tata Chemicals Ltd. vs. Commr. of Customs11 when it had observed: ―14. In our opinion, the expression ―deems it necessary‖ obviously means that the proper officer must have good reason to subject imported goods to a chemical

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

reassessment would have to be founded on justiciable grounds was an aspect which was also duly highlighted by the Supreme Court in Tata Chemicals Ltd. vs. Commr. of Customs11 when it had observed: ―14. In our opinion, the expression ―deems it necessary‖ obviously means that the proper officer must have good reason to subject imported goods to a chemical

THE COMMISSIONER OCF INCOME TAX-I vs. M/S.BHARAT BIOTECH INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: :

reassessment order without considering the established legal principles as laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Rakesh Gupta vs. CIT, (2018) 405 ITR 213/303 ? c) Whether in facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in law in deleting the addition

Sunil Kumar Ahuja vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

additions ee. ue submitted that the ITAT has erial was found at the premises submitted that warrants, which Aralias, Golf Link, Gurugram, therefore, there was sufficient tiating proceedings. There is the submissions of the counsel urt is of the firm view that the appeal but with the purpose to o place before us the warrants of e Act. satisfaction note

THE COMMISSIONER OF I.T.-I, HYDERABAD. vs. M/S. AKASH CABLE TV NETWORK PVT.LTD., HYDERABAD.

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

reassessment proceedings were initiated after information was received from Director of Investigation regarding bogus/accommodation entries allegedly provided by different companies which were managed and operated by Mukesh Gupta and Rajan Jassal. The Assessing Officer noticed that these companies had been issued shares by the appellant-assessee. A question arose whether the share application money received was a genuine transaction

M/s. Kausalya Shelters Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

income of the Respondent and the property tax applicable on the Property both of which will be the obligation of the Respondent; and b) To the Respondent or directly to the relevant agency/authority for up keep, electricity, water, and all other expenses in respect of the Property as per the bills or demands received from time to time and Digitally

M/S NMDC LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Additionally, the High Court directed payment of educational expenses for the son's university education and Rs. 5,000/- per month for private tuition. 87. Aggrieved by the quantum of alimony awarded, the appellant-wife is approached the Hon’ble Apex Court. 88. The Hon’ble Apex Court, by interim order dated 07.11.2023, noting the absence of representation on behalf

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. RASA AGROTECH PRIVATE LTD.

Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Income Tax Department who had filed the matter in December 2010, the defects pointed out by the Registry could not be attended to. It was only when the appeal of ETPL against the subsequent order of the ITAT dated 16th December 2009 was filed, it was noticed that ITA No. 453/2012 was unattended and it was only thereafter that

Pinna Nageswara RAo, vs. Commissioner of Income tax, IV (A.P)

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

additional market value under Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX-7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S SRI VENKATESWARA PADMAVATHI COMPAY, KHAMMAM DIST

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

additional market value under Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended

Kuchipudi Krishna Kishore vs. THE DCIT, CIR-2[1],

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

additional market value under Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended

Commissioner of Income Tax -II, vs. M/S Kasila Farms Ltd.,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

additional market value under Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended