The Commissioner of Income Tax -I, vs. M/s. Bhagyanagar Studios

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

reassessed compensation, was already net of tax. Therefore, any further deduction for income tax would amount to double deduction, which

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s. Prasad Film Laboratories Ltd.,

deducted 1/5th to assess the dependency compensation which is corrected in this reassessment. Apart from the said amount, 50% has to be added

COMMR OF INCOME TAX [TDS], HYDERABAD vs. M/S JAYADARSHINI HOUSING PVT LTD., HYDERABAD

Appeals are hereby dismissed by

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

deduction has to be recomputed. After considering the reply given by the assessee, order of reassessment was passed under Section

The Commissioner of Income Tax -V, vs. M/S Secunderabad Club

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

deduction to the extent of income from the profits and gains of business as has been prescribed in the provisions of section 80AB. This action of the assessee has resulted in under assessment of other income by Rs. 1,73,09,453/-.” 2. In W.P.(C) 2794/2008 and W.P.(C) 2795/2008 the reassessment

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

reassessment proceedings for bringing to rax iterns which had escaped assessment, it would be open to .n assessee to put forward claims for deduction

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HYD vs. SHRI TUMMALA SRI RAM BABU, VIJAYAWADA

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

deduction of one-fourth towards „personal expenses‟ of the deceased. Accordingly „loss of dependency’ of the legal heirs of the deceased is reassessed

The Director of Income Tax, (Exemptions) vs. Royal Education Society

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

reassessment proceedings for bringing to 17 tax items which had escaped assessment, it would be open to an assessee to put forward claims for deduction

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, vs. Mars TelecomSystems (P) Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

deduction, allowance or relief in the return; (d) where a person is found to have any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India. Explanation 3.—For the purpose of assessment or reassessment

The Director of Income-Tax (Exemptions) vs. Abid Road Khan Charitable AND Educational Trust

Appeal is partly allowed

reassessed as per the judgments mentioned above :- Sr. No. Heads Calculations (i) Income Rs.1,35,110/- per annum (ii) 40% of (i) above to be added as future prospects= Rs.1,35,110+Rs.54044=Rs.1,89,154/- per annum (iii) 1/3rd of (ii) deducted

SYED ABBAS MIAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-I,KURNOOL

deduction of rupees twenty lakh in a year;”” 78. Section 6 of the West Bengal Finance Act, 2017 is as follows: “6. Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court or other authority, no levy, assessment including provisional assessment, deemed assessment or summary assessment, reassessment

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Lee Pharma Pvt Ltd.,

reassessment as null and void? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in holding that reopening of assessment is bad in law without going into the merits of the case, that the assessment was reopened on account of excessive deduction

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K.V.Ramakrishna Rao

reassessment 3 6. Leamed counsel for the respondent No.2,/insuter would submit that considering the evidence of wife of the deceased/ P!7-1 and the admitted educational qualification of the deceased and the salary certificate produced, the tribunal rbhdy disbelieved the evidence, however reasonably quantified the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-. Furtler asserted that the future

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt.Anitha Sanghi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act. (2) The Assessing Officer shall determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form part of the total income under this Act in accordance with such

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

Bench: The Learned

deduction under Section 54F of the Act. Accordingly, the entire disallowance was deleted. 10. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.08.2015 passed by the learned CIT(A), the Revenue filed an appeal before the learned ITAT [ITA No.5892/Del/2015], which was also disposed of by the impugned order. 11. However, as noted above, the Revenue’s appeal in the present case does

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

reassess the duty leviable on such goods. 5. The scope of Section 17(4) and the exercise which is liable to be undertaken by the proper officer must also be appreciated in the backdrop of Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 which reads as follows:- "RULE 12. Rejection of declared value

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

reassess the duty leviable on such goods. 5. The scope of Section 17(4) and the exercise which is liable to be undertaken by the proper officer must also be appreciated in the backdrop of Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 which reads as follows:- "RULE 12. Rejection of declared value

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Hyderabad House Pvt Ltd.,

deduction has been made towards personal & living expenses. Case ‘I’ : MAC Appeal No. 421/2015 (In re: death of fourteen years‟ old Raju) 19. This appeal relates to a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 09.04.2011 involving negligent driving of a tempo bearing registration no.DL-1LD-3812 admittedly insured against third party risk with National Insurance Company Ltd. The tribunal

The Prl Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Institute of Development and Research in Banking Technology

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

deduction and therefore reversal of the same cannot be taxed again. I.T.A No.71/2017 C/W I.T.A No.785/2017 13 16. Shri. Suryanarayana contended that this explanation was accepted by the AO. However, in the subsequent Assessment Order under Section 147 dated 19.12.2013, the AO has recorded that the amounts of Rs.52,767,000/- and Rs.79,12,000/- were not allowable under Section