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

26, 55 and 61 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax, 2003 (for short-`the Act of 2003’) as also the reassessment orders passed, on the basis of such notice in some of the cases, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.-(2014) 16 SCC 410. Some of the petitioners filed

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

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals with cases where the importer

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals with cases where the importer

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

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

26, 2016 has dismissed ITA No.1124/Bang/2014. 11. Shri Suryanarayana submitted that: • the AO reopened the case under Section 147 of the Act for the A.Y.2008-09 on the ground that during the course of assessment for A.Y.2009-10, it was noticed that Section 10(23G) was omitted by the Finance Act, 2006, with effect from 01.04.2007. However, assessee had claimed exemption

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

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

reassessment notice issued by the respondent assessee for AY 2003-04 and 2005-06 (both of which had been settled during regular proceedings as scrutiny assessments) was issued. The notice for AY 2003-04 observed that the return was filed, disclosing an income at ₹26,93,63,940/-; it had claimed deduction under Section

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

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

26 "40. Period of limitation for assessment.- (1) An assessment under Section 38 or re- assessment under Section 39 of an amount of tax due for any prescribed tax period shall not be made after the following time limits.- (a) four years after the end of the prescribed tax period; or (b) three years after evidence of facts, sufficient

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

10. In respect of subsequent criminal cases so filed the entire issue of criminality and involvement of people was challenged and were 19 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters adjudicated upon. On one of such issue the Supreme Court in the matter of Central Bureau of Investigation v V.C. Shukla & Others17 held that prosecution intended to prove the abetment

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

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

10. In respect of subsequent criminal cases so filed the entire issue of criminality and involvement of people was challenged and were 19 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters adjudicated upon. On one of such issue the Supreme Court in the matter of Central Bureau of Investigation v V.C. Shukla & Others17 held that prosecution intended to prove the abetment

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

10. In respect of subsequent criminal cases so filed the entire issue of criminality and involvement of people was challenged and were 19 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters adjudicated upon. On one of such issue the Supreme Court in the matter of Central Bureau of Investigation v V.C. Shukla & Others17 held that prosecution intended to prove the abetment

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

10. In respect of subsequent criminal cases so filed the entire issue of criminality and involvement of people was challenged and were 19 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters adjudicated upon. On one of such issue the Supreme Court in the matter of Central Bureau of Investigation v V.C. Shukla & Others17 held that prosecution intended to prove the abetment

SYED ABBAS MIAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-I,KURNOOL

10 (SC) (State of Telengana and Others vs. Tirumala Construction) held that section 19 of the 101st Amendment did not prescribe any limitation for the legislation but circumscribed a time limit. 16. Learned Advocate General has contended that, the State was within its powers to amend the Entry Tax Act, 2012 by the West 19 Bengal Finance Act, 2017. Referring

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

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