COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. The A.P.Vardhaman(Mahila)Cooperative Urban

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

exemption but, in the reassessment proceedings, the order of the assessing officer was reversed, and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Andhra Bank Employees Co.Operative Bank Limited

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

exemption but, in the reassessment proceedings, the order of the assessing officer was reversed, and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S The A.P.Mahesh Coop. Urban Bank Ltd,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

exemption but, in the reassessment proceedings, the order of the assessing officer was reversed, and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

Commissioner of Income Tax-III., vs. Smt. Chirala Nivedita Reddy

exemption claimed under Section 10(29) of the Act, as well as certain categories of income and purchase. (While the matter stood thus, on 17.3.2006, the A.O. issued a reassessment

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

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

reassessment notice issued to the assessee by the revenue on 31.03.2008 (for AY 2001-2002) premises itself on the circumstance that in the original assessment, the assessee had claimed interest income as part of its exempt

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Akula Nageswara Rao

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

exemption under Section 5(2) of the Act. It is contended that the petitioner, after execution of intercompany purchase agreement on 06.08.2000, had subjected itself to levy of tax till the advance ruling of ACAR till 31.03.2006 and in other States except Harayana and Karnataka, is paying tax. It is also urged that since the proceeding for re-assessment were

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

Bench: The Learned

reassessment notice – which was issued beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year – was barred by limitation. The said objections were rejected by the AO. 15. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 29.12.2017, the Assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A). 16. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the Assessee’s challenge

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

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

exemption of interest free tax bonds under Section 10(23G). When the assessment was I.T.A No.71/2017 C/W I.T.A No.785/2017 9 reopened, the AO issued notice with regard to the deduction of Rs.5,27,67,000/- and Rs.79,12,000/- under Section 40(a) of the Act. Assessee has submitted its detailed reply on October 5, 2011. The AO has noticed

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

exemption was given in the original assessment order dated 4.2.2006 and there was no evidence on record that the same was transferred in the work contract. iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in not addressing itself on the application given under section 12-B, of the U.P. Trade

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Gowra Leasing AND Finance Ltd

Appeal is allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

reassessment proceedings are pending, the (2 of 4) [ITA-271/2008] entire assessment is open and not confined to scope of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer?” 3. However, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of S. Kasliwal & Co. vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in DB Income Tax Appeal No.53/2004

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Moschip Semiconductor Technology Ltd.,

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

exemptions in terms of Section 13 of the Act, which would be the task of the Assessing Officer to be undertaken at the time of assessment on the basis of material that may be brought on record.” 6.2. He has also relied upon another decision of Kerala High Court in case of Sree Anjaneya Medical Trust v. Commissioner of Income

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

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. ITA No.311/2022 1. Present Income Tax Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 31st July, 2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) in ITA No. 3585/Del./2017 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the ITAT

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

exempt income under Section 14A of the Act. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decision of the Supreme Court in ‘COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. WALFORT SHARE & STOCK BROKERS (P) LTD.’, (2010) 326 ITR 1, ‘GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX’, (2017) 394 ITR 449 and ‘MAXOPP INVESTMENT

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application is allowed. CM No.6953/2012 in ITA 252/2012 CM No.6956/2012 in ITA 253/2012 CM No.6972/2012 in ITA 258/2012 ITA Nos.252/12, 253/12 & 258/12 Page 2 of 8 This is an application for condonation of delay of 50 days in refiling the present appeals. Ld. counsel for the respondent waives right to file reply

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

reassessment beyond the expiry of limitation cannot be done unless income has escaped assessment by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year. Therefore, the reasoning assigned by the learned Commissioner (A) to give the nod to the alleged validity

PR COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

reassessment proceedings. The assessees resisted the move to assess them, contending that they were not subjected to income tax laws of India as they had no permanent establishment. The AO by order dated 31.12.2008 held that the appellant has a fixed place PE and DAPE in India. Further, the AO also deemed 10% of the value of supplies made