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

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

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

10 (paras 13, 14 and 15) I.T.A No.71/2017 C/W I.T.A No.785/2017 16 assessee. He forms an opinion. The reassessment will be invalid because the Assessing Officer had formed an opinion in the original assessment, though he had not recorded his reasons." (Emphasis Supplied) 19. It is also further held that Revenue is not without remedy and it can invoke power

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

10. Regarding ground No.4, Tribunal norcd that assessee had not led any evidence to show that the hire charges on plant & machinery and rent received from house propeny should be considered as contract receips from its own contracts and only a percentage of the same should be brought to tax. Tribr.rnal lurther noted that the entire algument advanced

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

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 (Central) vs. M/s Hyderabad House Pvt Ltd.,

20,000/- 13.12.2012 K. 30.06.2011 10 years 6,68,520/-* 26.04.2014 L. 02.10.2011 11 years 3,75,000/- 31.05.2014 M. 02.05.2012 14 years 3,75,000/- 29.09.2014 N. 04.02.2013 4 years 3,75,000/- 29.07.2013 * excluding medical expenses also awarded. 27. The above table graphically demonstrates not only divergence of opinion but also inconsistencies in approach. The incongruity is vivid

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

reassessed in terms of Section 154 of the Act and upon the amount being crystalized the same was immediately refunded to the respondent and the question of payment of interests does not and cannot arise. 9. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent in all the shipping bills indicated the iron content

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

Smt.Sudia Indira vs. The Income Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal from order stand dismissed

10 and 20. As held by Constitution   Bench of this Court in Chand Rani v. Kamal Rani. (1993) 1  SCC 519 : (1993 AIR SCW 1371), "it is clear that in the case of  sale of immovable properly there is no presumption as to time  being the essence of the contract. Even if it is not of the essence

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

reassessment' 18 cannot be reduced beyond the income originally assessed. 10. In Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd supra, it was held that in a proceeding fro re-assessment, the Assessing Officer cannot adjudicate the issues, which are the issues forming part of the original assessment, whether the issues are adjudicated or not, whereas, MEWALAL DWARKA PRASAD supra, it was held

COMM.OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE vs. NAVABHARAT ENTERPRISES HYD

In the result, Income Tax Appeal No

Bench: This Court & Hence Both Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Decided By This Common Judgment. 2. Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Rahul Agarwal, Advocate Have Appeared On Behalf Of Assessee & Sri Manish Goel, Advocate Has Put In Appearance On Behalf Of Revenue. 3. Revenue'S Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- (1)Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Tribunal Was Right In Holding That Authorization For Search

reassessment” in Section 132B shall be construed as references to “block assessment” . (emphasis applied) 26. Photocopy of warrant of authorisation issued in Form 45 under Section 112(I) of Income Tax Rules, pursuant whereto search was conducted at Assessee's premises on 28.11.1996 was produced before Tribunal, which are quoted in para 11.2 of Tribunal's order and relevant extract

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

The appeal is allowed

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

10,000/- towards litigation expenses. The appellant-wife then instituted Misc. Case No. 116 of 2010 under 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

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

Bench: The Learned

reassessment notice – which was issued beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year – was barred by limitation. The said objections were rejected by the AO. 15. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 29.12.2017, the Assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A). 16. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the Assessee’s challenge

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) vs. M/s. Hindustan RAtna (JV)

The Appeals are disposed of by modifying the award dated 20

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

20 years of age. Therefore, a multiplier of 18 was applied. The physical disability was assessed to be 45%, by the Tribunal. The High Court, to which the claimant appealed (and the insurer cross appealed), revised this head of compensation by doing away with the addition of 50% towards future prospects, and reassessed the compensation for loss of earning capacity