The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Samrakshna Electricals Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

natural justice because it raises suspicion of bias. 70. Thus, the tribunal has rightly concluded that the AO has passed the order of reassessment on the dictates of the higher authorities sitting at Delhi and Jabalpur. 71. Once having held that the reassessment started at the dictation of the higher authorities and thereafter, during reassessment process too continuous instructions were

M/s.GVK Petro Chemicals Private Limited,(Novo Resins AND vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,

natural justice because it raises suspicion of bias. 70. Thus, the tribunal has rightly concluded that the AO has passed the order of reassessment on the dictates of the higher authorities sitting at Delhi and Jabalpur. 71. Once having held that the reassessment started at the dictation of the higher authorities and thereafter, during reassessment process too continuous instructions were

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/s Devi Sea Foods Ltd.,

natural justice is alleged so as to entertain the writ petition at the stage of notice. Applying the ratio of all the aforesaid judgement, especially in Coastal Container Transporters Association, supra, we are inclined to hold that the present one cannot be said to be a case where the Assessing Officer completely lacked the jurisdiction in passing the reassessment

The Pr. Commissioner of Income -Tax-6 vs. M/s. B.Surendra Chowdary

natural justice is alleged so as to entertain the writ petition at the stage of notice. Applying the ratio of all the aforesaid judgement, especially in Coastal Container Transporters Association, supra, we are inclined to hold that the present one cannot be said to be a case where the Assessing Officer completely lacked the jurisdiction in passing the reassessment

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K.V.Ram Kumar

natural justice is alleged so as to entertain the writ petition at the stage of notice. Applying the ratio of all the aforesaid judgement, especially in Coastal Container Transporters Association, supra, we are inclined to hold that the present one cannot be said to be a case where the Assessing Officer completely lacked the jurisdiction in passing the reassessment

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

Justice or morality, or (d) in addition, if it is patently illegal. Illegality must go to the root of the matter and if the illegality is of trivial nature it cannot be held that award is against the public policy. Award could also be set aside if it is so unfair and unreasonable that it shocks the conscience

THE PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. M/S SRI RADHA KRISHNA VIHAR, KAKINADA

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

justice and contrary to law. He further contended that as per the Regulations, the remedy of appeal to the Principal Secretary to the Government is provided, but at the time of passing of the impugned order, the very sarne Managing Director of respondent No.2 Corporation is discharging as Principal Secretary to the Government. In view of the same, filing

Mr. Vasamsetty Veera Venkata Satyanarayana vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1

The appeal is allowed and the order passed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

natural justice and perverse inasmuch as the Learned CUSTA NO. 14 OF 2025 REPORTABLE Page 5 of 50 Tribunal has gone against the legal principle and the statutory prescription as prescribed under the Customs Act, 1962? 2. The facts leading to this appeal filed by the respondent before the Tribunal are culled out as hereunder. 3. The respondent had filed

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Kalyani Wines

In the result, I find this appeal bereft of merit and accordingly,

Bench: Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Robin Phukan

Justice of Gauhati High Court till payment is made by the respondent. The amount claimed under different heads and the awarded amount is shown in the Table below:- Sl. No. Different Heads Amounts claimed Amounts awarded A Enhancement of labour wages Rs.27,72,649 Rs.27,72,649 B Escalation Rs.28,92,193 Rs.28,92,193 C Compensation for damages

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s Transport Corporation of India

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

natural justice as show cause notice was issued to the Assessee and he has failed to offer any satisfactory explanation regarding the shortfall in closing stock and raw material. He submits that the competent Authority was having complete jurisdiction to pass the order impugned. Therefore, in the writ jurisdiction this Court should not reassess

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA J U D G M E N T Table of Contents I. Background ................................................................................... 13 II. The power of reassessment: a brief overview ............................ 33 III. The submissions addressed ...................................................... 46 IV. Evaluation of the Court ............................................................ 82 A. Declared values and the power of reappraisal ....................... 82 B. Exploring the concepts of abandonment and waiver .......... 104 C. Rejection of declared values

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA J U D G M E N T Table of Contents I. Background ................................................................................... 13 II. The power of reassessment: a brief overview ............................ 33 III. The submissions addressed ...................................................... 46 IV. Evaluation of the Court ............................................................ 82 A. Declared values and the power of reappraisal ....................... 82 B. Exploring the concepts of abandonment and waiver .......... 104 C. Rejection of declared values

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

natural justice by not providing an opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. The said mistaken belief is also reflected in the CSR recorded by the Department dated 08.02.2010. Copy of the CSR dated 08.02.2010 is attached herewith as ANNEXURE C." 14. It was further stated in para 13 that “on the basis of the aforementioned advise of the Counsel

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY I.T.T.A.No. 163 of 2005 IUDGMEIYT, rl'er rtt I toihL rtu t.ht lu,n.t t jlat Bhnatl Fleard Mr. Challa Gunaranjan, leamed counsel for the appellant-assessee and Mr. J.V.Pnsad, leamed Standing Counsel, Income Tax Depanment fbr the respondent-revenue. 2. This appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly 'the Act' hereinafter

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, vs. M/S Sigachi Laboratories Ltd.,

The appeals are allowed in the above terms

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (ORAL) % The sole question for consideration in these appeals formulated on 18.11.2005, is as follows: “Whether the ITAT was correct in law in quashing the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer under Section 16 (1) of the Gift Tax Act on the ground that condition precedent for reassessment of the proceedings under the said provision

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 11/09/2017 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee. 2. This Court while admitting the matter framed the following substantial question of law:- “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. M/S.WALTAIR COMMUNICATIONS PVT LTD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR M.F.A. NO.8398 OF 2016 (MV-I) C/W M.F.A. NO.8397 OF 2016 (MV-D), M.F.A. CROB NO.87 OF 2017 IN M.F.A.NO.8397 OF 2016 (MV-D), M.F.A. CROB NO.88 OF 2017 IN M.F.A.NO.8398 OF 2016 (MV-I) IN M.F.A. NO.8398 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR NWKSRTC HAVERI DIVISION, BYADGI UNIT-581110 OWNER OF BUS BEARING

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

natural guardian Appellant No. t herein) - All R/o. H.No.3-15-90/1. Ramanthapur, Hyderabad. AND ...Appellants 1. B Anuradha C/o. Sheetal Reddy. Aged Major, Occ Business, R/o. H.No. 2- 1 8- 1 62, lndiranagar, Uppal, Hyderabad. 2. Shriram General lnsurance Company Limited, Rep.by its Branch Manager, D.No-3-6-478, lll Floor, Anand Estate, Liberty Road, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. ...Respondents