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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

iii) Learned counsel would also submit that the Supreme Court in the matter of Vineet Narain & Others v Union of India & Another1 had directed the Government agencies to fairly, properly and fully investigate into every accusation against every person and all the agencies were directed to timely report to the Supreme 1 WP(Cri.) No.340-343 of 1993 (dated

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

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

iii) Learned counsel would also submit that the Supreme Court in the matter of Vineet Narain & Others v Union of India & Another1 had directed the Government agencies to fairly, properly and fully investigate into every accusation against every person and all the agencies were directed to timely report to the Supreme 1 WP(Cri.) No.340-343 of 1993 (dated

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

iii) Learned counsel would also submit that the Supreme Court in the matter of Vineet Narain & Others v Union of India & Another1 had directed the Government agencies to fairly, properly and fully investigate into every accusation against every person and all the agencies were directed to timely report to the Supreme 1 WP(Cri.) No.340-343 of 1993 (dated

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

iii) Learned counsel would also submit that the Supreme Court in the matter of Vineet Narain & Others v Union of India & Another1 had directed the Government agencies to fairly, properly and fully investigate into every accusation against every person and all the agencies were directed to timely report to the Supreme 1 WP(Cri.) No.340-343 of 1993 (dated

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

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

iii) Replika Press Private Limited & Another vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle (W.P.(C) 7452/2010 dated 5th August, 2013) 11 (iv) (2014) 363 ITR 603 (Bom) NDT Systems and another vs. Income-Tax Officer and others (v) (2014) 366 ITR 134 (Guj) Deepakbhai Ramjibhai Patel vs. Income- Tax Officer 8. Assessee is in the business of software development

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

25 (b) three years after evidence of facts, sufficient in the opinion of the prescribed authority to justify making of the re- assessment, comes to its knowledge, whichever is later. (2) If any tax is, not paid by a dealer who has failed to get registered under Section 79, an assessment or re-assessment may be made

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/s Devi Sea Foods Ltd.,

III, Rajasthan, Jaipur Having its address at, Kar Bhawan, Bhagwandas Road, Jaipur In The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 518/2017 M/s. Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, Having Its Address At Sun Moon Chambers Near Ajmer Flyover Linking Road, Gopal Bari Jaipur And Authorized Signatory Shri Yogesh Kumar Srivastava. ----Appellant/Petitoner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through

The Pr. Commissioner of Income -Tax-6 vs. M/s. B.Surendra Chowdary

III, Rajasthan, Jaipur Having its address at, Kar Bhawan, Bhagwandas Road, Jaipur In The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 518/2017 M/s. Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, Having Its Address At Sun Moon Chambers Near Ajmer Flyover Linking Road, Gopal Bari Jaipur And Authorized Signatory Shri Yogesh Kumar Srivastava. ----Appellant/Petitoner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K.V.Ram Kumar

III, Rajasthan, Jaipur Having its address at, Kar Bhawan, Bhagwandas Road, Jaipur In The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 518/2017 M/s. Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, Having Its Address At Sun Moon Chambers Near Ajmer Flyover Linking Road, Gopal Bari Jaipur And Authorized Signatory Shri Yogesh Kumar Srivastava. ----Appellant/Petitoner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through

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

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

25. Search was conducted pursuant to warrant of authorization under Section 132(1) of Act, 1961 and Block Assessment has been made under Chapter XIV B; in particular, Section 158 BC of Act, 1961.It would be appropriate to have a glance over Section 132(1) and 158 BC of Act, 1961:- 132. Search and seizure.- (1) Where the Director General

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

THE PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. L. SURYAKANTHAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

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