COMMR OF INCOME TAX [TDS], HYDERABAD vs. M/S JAYADARSHINI HOUSING PVT LTD., HYDERABAD

Appeals are hereby dismissed by

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

reassess such income. 10. In the instant case, the Tribunal, while accepting the plea of the assessee that merely on change of opinion, the concluded assessment was being reopened, noticed that the Assessing Officer had already gone into specific issues arising under Section 10A of the Act. It can be noticed that from the reasons recorded for issue of notice

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

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

10 the AO while passing the assessment order on 16.11.2011. Therefore, the reason recorded by the AO in the assessment order under Section 147 of the Act dated 19.12.2013 on the ground that deduction was allowed inadvertently is not sustainable. 12. In substance, Shri Suryanarayana's argument is, the AO had accepted the explanation and passed the assessment order. Therefore

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

reassessment done…." and proceeds to speak of the importer "confirming his acceptance of the said re-assessment in writing". 10. On a preliminary examination of the scheme of Section 17 we are also of the view that while it may be open for an importer to proceed in terms of Section 17(5), the same would not detract from

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

reassessment done…." and proceeds to speak of the importer "confirming his acceptance of the said re-assessment in writing". 10. On a preliminary examination of the scheme of Section 17 we are also of the view that while it may be open for an importer to proceed in terms of Section 17(5), the same would not detract from

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 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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10 expenditure in the scheme of Section 14A of the Act. It is further submitted that condition precedent for invoking Section 14A of the Act is pay out. In the instant case, since the assessee has not incurred any expenditure, therefore, the provisions of Section 14A of the Act do not apply to the fact situation of the case

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

10 (2022) 62 GSTL 136 (P&H) 11 (2006) 150 Taxmann 591 (SC) CUSTA NO. 14 OF 2025 REPORTABLE Page 17 of 50 12. It is submitted that similar rate of interest was granted in the case of Reliance Transport and Travel Private Limited Versus Union of India 12 which decision was followed in Rachana Garments Private Limited Versus Commissioner

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

10 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters back the case to the AO for conducting fresh assessment and the question regarding initiation of reassessment proceeding has attained finality and the direction of reassessment cannot be said to be as per the dictates of superior authorities. He would submit that even if it is found that on the basis

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

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

10 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters back the case to the AO for conducting fresh assessment and the question regarding initiation of reassessment proceeding has attained finality and the direction of reassessment cannot be said to be as per the dictates of superior authorities. He would submit that even if it is found that on the basis

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters back the case to the AO for conducting fresh assessment and the question regarding initiation of reassessment proceeding has attained finality and the direction of reassessment cannot be said to be as per the dictates of superior authorities. He would submit that even if it is found that on the basis

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

10 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters back the case to the AO for conducting fresh assessment and the question regarding initiation of reassessment proceeding has attained finality and the direction of reassessment cannot be said to be as per the dictates of superior authorities. He would submit that even if it is found that on the basis

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

12-01-1999 in Appeal No.288/TrlDC.SR.1/ClT(A)lll98/99 preferred against the order of the deputy commissioner of lncome Tax, (Assts) Special Range-|, Hyderabad dated 31-03-1997 in PAN/GIR No. P-2. Between: Progreesive Constructions Limited, Represented Managing Director 7th Floor, "Raghava" North Block, Abids, HYDERABAD. by K. Bhaskara Rao, R.R. Towers, C.A. Lane, ...APPELLANT Jt. Commissioner of income

The Commissioner of Income Tax -V, vs. M/S Secunderabad Club

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections

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 influenced

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

Bench: The Learned

Section 147 read with 143(3) of Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:13.05.2025 15:59:36 Signature Not Verified ITA 127/2025 Page 4 of 10 the Act. 12. The reassessment

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 147 clearly lays down that reassessment beyond the expiry of limitation cannot be done unless income has escaped assessment by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year. Therefore, the reasoning assigned by the learned Commissioner (A) to give

Andhra PRadesh Pradesh Fibres Limited vs. Assistant commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

10 apply to fact situation of the case. However, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the tribunal. It is further submitted that it ought to have been appreciated that the order was passed by the tribunal to give effect to its finding and therefore, the provisions of Section 153(3)(ii) apply to the facts