CHENNAKESAVA PHARMACEUTICALS VIJAYAWADA vs. THE COMI.OF INCOMETAX VIJ.

In the result, all the appeals are allowed setting aside the common

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

reassessment and the said order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c) of sub Section (1), such

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

reassessment orders passed, on the basis of such notice in some of the cases, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.-(2014) 16 SCC 410. Some of the petitioners filed reply to the show cause notice and agitated those very arguments, which have been raised before this Court

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

reassessment orders passed, on the basis of such notice in some of the cases, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.-(2014) 16 SCC 410. Some of the petitioners filed reply to the show cause notice and agitated those very arguments, which have been raised before this Court

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

reassessment orders passed, on the basis of such notice in some of the cases, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.-(2014) 16 SCC 410. Some of the petitioners filed reply to the show cause notice and agitated those very arguments, which have been raised before this Court

EVEREST ORGANICS LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF I.T., HYDERABAD

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

reassess the assessee was not independent but was at the instance of superior officer. 42. Now next coming to the substantial questions of law which were admitted for hearing at the instance of Revenue on 13-2-2013, which have already been quoted in para 4 (G) of this judgment. 20 (1987) 4 SCC 611 37 ITA No.6

C. SANYASI RAJU vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIZAG.

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

reassess the assessee was not independent but was at the instance of superior officer. 42. Now next coming to the substantial questions of law which were admitted for hearing at the instance of Revenue on 13-2-2013, which have already been quoted in para 4 (G) of this judgment. 20 (1987) 4 SCC 611 37 ITA No.6

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

reassess the assessee was not independent but was at the instance of superior officer. 42. Now next coming to the substantial questions of law which were admitted for hearing at the instance of Revenue on 13-2-2013, which have already been quoted in para 4 (G) of this judgment. 20 (1987) 4 SCC 611 37 ITA No.6

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

reassess the assessee was not independent but was at the instance of superior officer. 42. Now next coming to the substantial questions of law which were admitted for hearing at the instance of Revenue on 13-2-2013, which have already been quoted in para 4 (G) of this judgment. 20 (1987) 4 SCC 611 37 ITA No.6

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s. BDR Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Penalties under Sections 112 (a) and 112 (b) (i) and (ii) of the Act were also proposed. 14. In reply to the said SCN, the Respondents questioned the jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs (Preventive) on the ground that the jurisdiction thereof vested in the Commissioner by virtue of Notification No. 251/83 which was more specific and limited in nature

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

REASSESSMENT: A BRIEF OVERVIEW 19. Before we proceed to record the submissions that were advanced by and on behalf of respective sides, it would be appropriate to take note of and extract the relevant statutory provisions on the basis of which the question as posited would be liable to be answered. The subject of valuation of goods is firstly dealt

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

REASSESSMENT: A BRIEF OVERVIEW 19. Before we proceed to record the submissions that were advanced by and on behalf of respective sides, it would be appropriate to take note of and extract the relevant statutory provisions on the basis of which the question as posited would be liable to be answered. The subject of valuation of goods is firstly dealt

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

reassessing the shipping bills a communication was issued by the department dated 17.08.2023 calling upon the respondent to submit all connected documents and the respondent in response submitted the required documents and immediately thereafter the adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund on 05.09.2023 and the same was paid to the respondent on 06.09.2023 and therefore, the question of payment of interests

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

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

penalty proceedings under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act 1961 was separately initiated against the petitioner. The Assessee Company has not filed any appeal against the assessment order and filed revision under Section 264 of the Act 1961. In the said revision, the petitioner/Assessee has raised a ground that in making addition to Rs.57,41,353/- to the total

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. S.P.Office Needs Pvt Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the ITA 634/2015 &Connected matters Page 6 of7 jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing

The Commissioner of Income Tax -III vs. Sri T.C. Reddy

The appeal stands dismissed

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) r.w 274 of the Income-tax Act for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars are initiated separately. (iv) The assessee has booked various expenses of contractual nature, vide order sheet entry dated 29.12.2009, the assessee was asked to show cause why the same should not disallowed u/s40a(ia). In response thereto the assessee

The Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs. Sri D.Manikya Prabhu

The appeal is allowed and order

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

reassessment without application of his own mind to the facts and circumstances of the case” ? 2. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, delay of 3 days, which we find none to be there as not at all attributable and as such, it is in this backdrop, the substantial question of law, framed by this Court

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

penalty, the defaulting party is under an obligation to pay the amount stipulated and provided for under the contract. 70. It has been further submitted that contrary to the assertions of the petitioner, the respondent had squarely articulated the present claim before the Tribunal as „Balance Rent‟ for the remaining lock-in period instead of liquidated damages. He further contended