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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

reassessment triggered when the CBI search was made at others premises, not the assessee and certain documents were found at the place of one J.K. Jain. This led to investigation and filing of charge sheet in criminal cases. Few of documents so seized during search and seizure

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

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

reassessment triggered when the CBI search was made at others premises, not the assessee and certain documents were found at the place of one J.K. Jain. This led to investigation and filing of charge sheet in criminal cases. Few of documents so seized during search and seizure

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

reassessment triggered when the CBI search was made at others premises, not the assessee and certain documents were found at the place of one J.K. Jain. This led to investigation and filing of charge sheet in criminal cases. Few of documents so seized during search and seizure

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

reassessment triggered when the CBI search was made at others premises, not the assessee and certain documents were found at the place of one J.K. Jain. This led to investigation and filing of charge sheet in criminal cases. Few of documents so seized during search and seizure

Sunil Kumar Ahuja vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

reassessment o manner as prescribed under S other manner. However, we f invoked and initiated proceed Act, although neither there Section 132 of the Act as aga said that the search was con view has been taken by Gujar Vaswani and Subhash Khat -8- n Kabul Chawla’s case (supra) einbelow, we are in complete by the Delhi High Court

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. Sri. Sudheer Reddy

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

search and seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act was carried out in Banarasi Group of cases, both at the residential and the business premises of the said group. Certain incriminating material was 4 recovered and Panchnama was also drawn. On 27.09.2007, a notice under section 153-C of the Income Tax Act was issued after

Commissioner of Income Tax-VI vs. Shri Prem Singh

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Ms. Chandrani Das, Adv. Ms. Riti Basu, Adv.

search and seizure." 7 After rendering the above finding the Tribunal examined as to whether the assessee was justified in contending that the reassessment

Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax-3 vs. M/s. Spectra Shares AND Scripes Pvt. Ltd.,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Ms. Chandrani Das, Adv. Ms. Riti Basu, Adv.

search and seizure." 7 After rendering the above finding the Tribunal examined as to whether the assessee was justified in contending that the reassessment

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

Bench: The Learned

seizure operation was carried out under Section 132 of the Act on persons constituting the FIITJEE Group. The Assessee was also one of the persons searched. Thereafter, the AO issued a notice dated 13.08.2013 under Section 153A of the Act and during the ensuing proceedings, examined the claim of the Assessee for deduction under Section

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

Search and seizure operations were carried out under Section 132 of the Act on Mr. Buta Singh, the father of Mr. Arvinder Singh, and Group. Notice was issued under Section 158BD of the Act requiring ETPL as well as Mr. Arvinder Singh to file their respective returns of income. Another similar notice was issued under Section

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

seizure valued at Rs. 1,04,118.52 should not be confiscated, and customs duty in the sum of Rs. 5,07,274 should not be levied in terms of Section 28 (1) of the Act by involving the extended period of limitation. Penalties under Sections 112 (a) and 112 (b) (i) and (ii) of the Act were also proposed

Smt.Sudia Indira vs. The Income Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal from order stand dismissed

seizure or attachment or stay by the Court  is there on the said lands. And it has not been  given against surety or in  equitable mortgage. No chapters are pending for acquisition of the said  lands.   And  said  lands   are   not   in   reservation   or   in   acquisition.   And  nobody's rights of alimony or tenancy are there on the said lands