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

THE COMM. OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S IJM (INDIA) INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the appeal (ITAT/381/2017) stands dismissed

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

JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA Date : 3rd January, 2022. The Court : This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ in brevity) is directed against the order dated 10th August, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata (the ‘Tribunal’ in short) in ITA No.900/Kol/2011 and ITA No.565/Kol/2011 both

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

nature was and is a worldwide event. Some countries have imposed lockdown of various degrees of severity while others have not. The decision to impose a lockdown is taken by man. However, there is no need to render a conclusive finding on this aspect as, even if it is assumed that the Covid-19 pandemic and the lockdown constituted

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

The appeal is allowed

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

JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------- For the Appellant : Mr.Ashish Gautam, Advocate; Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate ------ C.A.V. ON: 22.12.2025 PRONOUNCED ON:21/01/2026 [Per: Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.] 1. Both the appeals have been preferred under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. 2. Since both the appeals arise out of the common judgment

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. The present appeals by the revenue are directed against a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 5th April, 2005 in seven appeals (by the revenue) and cross objections preferred by the assessee. The following questions of law were framed for consideration of this Court: (i) Whether the ITAT was, in the facts

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

nature and quality of lands is by and large similar to the notified land there should be no interference with respect to the amount of compensation to be awarded. Further reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash (D) by LRs & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr3 and Delhi Development Authority

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

nature and quality of lands is by and large similar to the notified land there should be no interference with respect to the amount of compensation to be awarded. Further reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash (D) by LRs & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr3 and Delhi Development Authority

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

nature and quality of lands is by and large similar to the notified land there should be no interference with respect to the amount of compensation to be awarded. Further reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash (D) by LRs & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr3 and Delhi Development Authority

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

nature and quality of lands is by and large similar to the notified land there should be no interference with respect to the amount of compensation to be awarded. Further reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash (D) by LRs & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr3 and Delhi Development Authority

M/S.MALLIKARJUNA RICE INDUSTRIES vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL NO: 128 0F 2006 Appeal Under Section 260 A of the tncome Tax Act, 1961 aggrieved by the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench _ B Hyderabad dated 28-07 -2005 in ITA No. 783 t Hydt 2oo4 ( Assessment year 1998-99 ) preferred against the order of the commissioner of rncome

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

Bench: The Learned

JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (Oral) 1. The Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [Act] impugning an order dated 25.09.2024 [impugned order] passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT] in ITA No.3426/Del/2019 in respect of Assessment Year [AY] 2011-12. 2. The impugned order is a common order passed

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-4 vs. Sri. Krishna Chigullapally

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

JUSTICE T.G.SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA STRP NO. 8 OF 2022 C/W STRP NO. 9 OF 2022,STRP NO. 10 OF 2022 STRP NO. 11 OF 2022, STRP NO. 14 OF 2022 STRP NO. 15 OF 2022, STRP NO. 16 OF 2022 STRP NO. 17 OF 2022, STRP NO. 18 OF 2022 STRP NO. 19 OF 2022, STRP NO. 20 OF 2022 STRP