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

10. Sub-section (2A) and (2B) to Section 28 of the Act were inserted with effect from 11th May 2001 by the Finance Act, 2001. Two Notifications bearing Nos. 250-Cus and 251-Cus were issued on 27th August 1983 by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 4 (1) of the Act, appointing Collector

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

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 under Section

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

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

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 1a8(sz;) o[ the Act, assessing officer computed t zol trn ltz 5 the total incor,re of the assessee at Rs.2,16,89,170.00. Flowever, after adjustmerrt of the refund for earlier assessment y3ars, the amount payabl,: bythe assessee was quantified at Rs.95,690.00. 7. Against rhe aforesaid order of assessment, assessee preferred appeal before r he Commissioner

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

14 Section 263 or Section 264 is passed by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner. 3. The provisions of sub-Sections (1) and (2) shall not apply to the following classes of assessments., reassessmnents and recomputations which may, subject to the provisions of sub-Section (2A), be completed at any time- (i) xxxxxx (ii) where the assessment, reassessment or recomputation

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 :-

10. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order of the ITAT. Decision and Findings 11. We have carefully considered the submissions of the parties and perused the paper book. Substantial Question of Law (i) 12. It is undisputed that the assessee filed original return as well as revised return of income much prior to the issuance

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. Smt.Anitha Sanghi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

ii) standard assets (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

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

II. The appellant company is permitted to make an appropriate application, if it so desires, before the Advance Ruling Authority, as provided under Section 4 of the Act r/w Rul3 27 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules. III. Liberty is also reserved to the appellant company to produce such material, which are available with it including the material produced before

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s.Viskha Container Terminal Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

14 High Court held that the issue of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is a condition precedent to the validity of any assessment order to be passed under section 147 of the Act and when such a notice is not issued and assessment made, such a defect cannot be treated as cured under Section 292B

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 as Maharani

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 as Maharani

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 as Maharani

Commissioner of Income Tax -II, vs. M/S Kasila Farms Ltd.,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

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 as Maharani