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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

3) read with Section 147 of the IT Act for all the years under consideration except allowing the relief to the assessee on the issue relating to the levy of interest under Section 139(8) and Section 217 of the A.Y. 1988-89. h) Feeling aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the assessee preferred appeal for the assessment

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

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

3) read with Section 147 of the IT Act for all the years under consideration except allowing the relief to the assessee on the issue relating to the levy of interest under Section 139(8) and Section 217 of the A.Y. 1988-89. h) Feeling aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the assessee preferred appeal for the assessment

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3) read with Section 147 of the IT Act for all the years under consideration except allowing the relief to the assessee on the issue relating to the levy of interest under Section 139(8) and Section 217 of the A.Y. 1988-89. h) Feeling aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the assessee preferred appeal for the assessment

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

3) read with Section 147 of the IT Act for all the years under consideration except allowing the relief to the assessee on the issue relating to the levy of interest under Section 139(8) and Section 217 of the A.Y. 1988-89. h) Feeling aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the assessee preferred appeal for the assessment

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 vs. M/s Kaveri Bar AND Restaurant,

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

10, 2005 reflects the ground for reassessment in the present case, that is, the deduction allowed in excess under section 10A and, therefore, the income has escaped assessment to the tune of Rs. 57,36,811. In the order in question dated August 17, 2005, the reason purportedly given for rejecting the objections was that the assessee was no maintaining

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Hyderabad House Pvt Ltd.,

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. A case of death

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 :-

reassessment is not made for the benefit of assessee. In fact in this case, time for issuing notice under section 143(2) was available with the Assessing Officer after filing the revised return but instead of that he has issued notice under section 148. Therefore, I find force behind the arguments of the appellant that the appellant should

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

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

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

10. Section 147, to the extent it is relevant, is reproduced below: "147. - Income Escaping Assessment - If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable

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. Smt.Anitha Sanghi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3) The provisions of sub-Section (2) shall also apply in relation to a case where an assesee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act. Provided that nothing contained in this Section shall empower the Assessing Officer either to reassess under Section

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

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

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

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

3) read with 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