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

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

1)(a)(ii) of the KVAT Act. However, insofar as it relates to Telecommunication equipment, the same requires to be notified by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under the KVAT Act and the State Government has been issuing Notifications specifying the products which would be treated as IT products;  Notification No. FD 43 CSL 07(02) dated

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

1 -- For the purposes of this section, "relevant date" means,- (a) in a case where duty is not levied, or interest is not charged, the date on which the proper officer makes an order for the clearance of goods; (b) in a case where duty is provisionally assessed under section 18, the date of adjustment of duty after the final

The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. Smt P Sujana

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

reassessment under Section 147, not a case for rectification wherein the tax liability has been enhanced. 6. Learned counsel for the revenue justifying the orders of the authorities submitted that Section 80 of the Act provides for submission of return for losses. In terms of the said Section, it is mandatory that the return for losses has to be filed

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

1) (as it stood then) are attracted. Therefore, the theory as propounded by the respondent that the assessment made at the first instance was a provisional assessment is outrightly rejected. 32. We are also prompted to examine as to what would fall within the scope of Section 154 of the Act which deals with correction/clerical errors etc. Section 154 states

The Commissioner of Income Tax - III, vs. M/s. Suven Pharmaceuticals Limited,

Appeals are dismissed

reassessment or recomputation under section  147 [or section 153A], the amount on which  interest was payable under sub­section (1) is  increased

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

The appeal is allowed

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

Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The Trial Court, vide order dated 28.03.2014, directed the respondent-husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the appellant-wife and Rs. 6,000/- per month to the minor son, along with Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation costs. The Trial Court, vide order dated 10.01.2016, dismissed the matrimonial

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar,

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 10Th April, 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Advocate Ms. Swapna Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Sanjay Bhowmick, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. The Assessment Years Involved In The Present Appeal Are Assessment Year 1999-2000 & Assessment Year 2000-01. By Order Dated 16.08.2012, This Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :-

section 143(1) of the Act, which cannot be treated to be an order in view of decision of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Jhaveri (supra). Therefore, the question of reassessment

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

reassess the duty leviable on such goods. 5. The scope of Section 17(4) and the exercise which is liable to be undertaken by the proper officer must also be appreciated in the backdrop of Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 which reads as follows:- "RULE 12. Rejection of declared value. - 1

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

reassess the duty leviable on such goods. 5. The scope of Section 17(4) and the exercise which is liable to be undertaken by the proper officer must also be appreciated in the backdrop of Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 which reads as follows:- "RULE 12. Rejection of declared value. - 1

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

reassessment as the case may be." Section 40 of the Act was again amended by amending Act No.54 of 2013 and the aforesaid provision was given a retrospective operation 01.04.2005. The amended provision reads as under "40. Period of limitation for assessment.- (1

The Director of Income Tax, (Exemptions) vs. Royal Education Society

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

reassess such income, profits or gains. It is, therefore, manifest that once assessment is reopened by issuing a notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 22 the previous under- assessment is set aside and the whole assessment proceedings start afresh. When once valid proceedings are started under Section 34(1

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

reassessment proceedings, simply to verify the contents of the return, unlike before it was vested in him in making regular assessment. It was found that the time-limit available for issuance of notice and making assessment under Section 143(3) had expired, but then, on that count, he cannot assume the jurisdiction by venturing to make assessment under Section

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 131 of the IT Act. Letter sent by the DDIT (Inv.), Delhi, to the DCIT (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax), Special Range, Bhilai, who is the Assessing Officer (for brevity ‘the AO’) for initiating reassessment proceedings. The relevant seized documents and set of papers were sent to the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Jabalpur on 1

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

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

Section 131 of the IT Act. Letter sent by the DDIT (Inv.), Delhi, to the DCIT (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax), Special Range, Bhilai, who is the Assessing Officer (for brevity ‘the AO’) for initiating reassessment proceedings. The relevant seized documents and set of papers were sent to the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Jabalpur on 1

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 131 of the IT Act. Letter sent by the DDIT (Inv.), Delhi, to the DCIT (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax), Special Range, Bhilai, who is the Assessing Officer (for brevity ‘the AO’) for initiating reassessment proceedings. The relevant seized documents and set of papers were sent to the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Jabalpur on 1

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

Section 131 of the IT Act. Letter sent by the DDIT (Inv.), Delhi, to the DCIT (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax), Special Range, Bhilai, who is the Assessing Officer (for brevity ‘the AO’) for initiating reassessment proceedings. The relevant seized documents and set of papers were sent to the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Jabalpur on 1

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

reassessment proceedings, the order of the assessing officer was reversed, and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) referred the matter to the High Court under Section 66(1

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

reassessment proceedings, the order of the assessing officer was reversed, and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) referred the matter to the High Court under Section 66(1