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

10. At this stage, Sri. R.V. Prasad, learned Counsel very fairly would submit that without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case, he may be permitted to make an appropriate application before the authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling and further, requests this Court to direct the authority to pass an appropriate order, without being

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Kaveri Bar AND Restaurant,

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

iii) of the Income Tax Act in the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessing officer in his recorded reasons also could not make out a case that the basis of reopening the assessment in question is some new material which came into his possession subsequently and which was not available or was undisclosed

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

Appeals are dismissed

reassessment  or recomputation exceeds the tax on the total  income determined [under sub­section (1) of  section 143 or] on the basis of the regular  assessment aforesaid. (4) Where,   as   a   result   of   an   order   under  section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or  section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or  section 263 or section

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

10. Having considered the rival contentions and after perusal of the records, we find that the issue here is no longer res-integra. Under similar facts and circumstances on import of similar goods by the M/s VSM Impex Pvt. Ltd., this Tribunal referring to Section 17(5) read with Section 17(4), concluded that the adjudicating authority is required

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

10. Having considered the rival contentions and after perusal of the records, we find that the issue here is no longer res-integra. Under similar facts and circumstances on import of similar goods by the M/s VSM Impex Pvt. Ltd., this Tribunal referring to Section 17(5) read with Section 17(4), concluded that the adjudicating authority is required

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

iii. \fltr':ther the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in disallowing the personnel, adminis -rative and fhancial expenditure relating to the sub-contracts allowed in the or(inal assessment ? iv. \I(h,:ther the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse insofar as it omined to consider the relevant material ,.rt , computation o[ profits

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

The Prl Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Institute of Development and Research in Banking Technology

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

III STAGE BANGALORE-560 085 .…APPELLANTS (BY SHRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. ABB INDIA LTD 21ST FLOOR, WORLD TRADE CENTRE BRIGADE GATEWAY NO.26/01, DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD MALLESWARAM WEST I.T.A No.71/2017 C/W I.T.A No.785/2017 3 BANGALORE-560 055 PAN;AAACA 3834B …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. TANMAYEE RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

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 imparted and even the AO obtained instructions, therefore, the end result would be same as the bias would exist. Decision of reassessment, reassessment

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

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

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 imparted and even the AO obtained instructions, therefore, the end result would be same as the bias would exist. Decision of reassessment, reassessment

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 imparted and even the AO obtained instructions, therefore, the end result would be same as the bias would exist. Decision of reassessment, reassessment

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

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 imparted and even the AO obtained instructions, therefore, the end result would be same as the bias would exist. Decision of reassessment, reassessment

M/s. Dakshin Infrastructures Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

10. Kausalya Shelters Private Limited, Karimnagar. 680/Hyd/2020 2017-18 681/Hyd/2020 2012-13 682/Hyd/2020 2013-14 683/Hyd/2020 2016-17 684/Hyd/2020 2017-18 11. M/s. Kausalya Avenues Private Limited, Karimnagar. 685/Hyd/2020 2018-19 686/Hyd/2020 2012-13 12. Kapil Infra Avenues Private Limited, Vijayawada. 687/Hyd/2020 2013-14 688/Hyd/2020 2012-13 689/Hyd/2020 2013-14 13. Preethi Foods and Villas Private Limited, Khammam. 690/Hyd/2020

M/s Kausalya Agro Farms and Developers pvt. ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

10. Kausalya Shelters Private Limited, Karimnagar. 680/Hyd/2020 2017-18 681/Hyd/2020 2012-13 682/Hyd/2020 2013-14 683/Hyd/2020 2016-17 684/Hyd/2020 2017-18 11. M/s. Kausalya Avenues Private Limited, Karimnagar. 685/Hyd/2020 2018-19 686/Hyd/2020 2012-13 12. Kapil Infra Avenues Private Limited, Vijayawada. 687/Hyd/2020 2013-14 688/Hyd/2020 2012-13 689/Hyd/2020 2013-14 13. Preethi Foods and Villas Private Limited, Khammam. 690/Hyd/2020

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt.Anitha Sanghi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

iii) depreciation on securities (iv) floating rate notes of London branch (v) DICGC loans (vi) suits filed accounts (vii) miscellaneous provision cannot be added back in accordance with Explanation of Section 115JA of the Act in the light of the judgment of the Apex court in H.C.L. Comnet when there is diminution in the value of assets as contended

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

10 SCC 627 4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land of posh colonies such

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

10 SCC 627 4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land of posh colonies such

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

10 SCC 627 4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land of posh colonies such