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

37 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under sub-section (1) of section 131 of this Act, or a notice under sub-section (4) of section 22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under sub-section (1) of section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause to be produced

Commissioner of Income Tax-III., vs. Smt. Chirala Nivedita Reddy

reassessment notice, this time alleging that exemption claimed under Section 10(29) was inadmissible. He sought to add back a sum of ₹15,90,10,698/-. This was premised also, inter alia, on the footing that Section 37

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

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

37. The Supreme Court had also adverted to the procedure of provisional assessment as embodied in 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

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

37. The Supreme Court had also adverted to the procedure of provisional assessment as embodied in 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

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt.Anitha Sanghi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

37,618/-. Thereafter a notice was issued under Section 143(2) of the Act. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 31.12.2002 inter alia held that since exempted dividend does not form part of income, the assessee is not entitled to disallowance of proportionate expenses as required under Section 14A of the Act. Accordingly, an addition of Rs.20

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

37 of the Act. In support of aforesaid submissions, reference has been made to 'ITO VS. MEWALAL DWARKA PRASAD', (1989) 176 ITR 529 (SC), 'ITO VS. K.L.SRIHARI (HUF) (2001) 250 ITR 193 (SC), and 'ACIT VS. 9 RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS P. LTD.', (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that

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

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

10 (2022) 62 GSTL 136 (P&H) 11 (2006) 150 Taxmann 591 (SC) CUSTA NO. 14 OF 2025 REPORTABLE Page 17 of 50 12. It is submitted that similar rate of interest was granted in the case of Reliance Transport and Travel Private Limited Versus Union of India 12 which decision was followed in Rachana Garments Private Limited Versus Commissioner

M/s. Dakshin Infrastructures Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

10. Kausalya Shelters Private Limited, Karimnagar. 680/Hyd/2020 2017-18 681/Hyd/2020 2012-13 682/Hyd/2020 2013-14 683/Hyd/2020 2016-17 684/Hyd/2020 2017-18 11. M/s. Kausalya Avenues Private Limited, Karimnagar. 685/Hyd/2020 2018-19 686/Hyd/2020 2012-13 12. Kapil Infra Avenues Private Limited, Vijayawada. 687/Hyd/2020 2013-14 688/Hyd/2020 2012-13 689/Hyd/2020 2013-14 13. Preethi Foods and Villas Private Limited, Khammam. 690/Hyd/2020

M/s Kausalya Agro Farms and Developers pvt. ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

10. Kausalya Shelters Private Limited, Karimnagar. 680/Hyd/2020 2017-18 681/Hyd/2020 2012-13 682/Hyd/2020 2013-14 683/Hyd/2020 2016-17 684/Hyd/2020 2017-18 11. M/s. Kausalya Avenues Private Limited, Karimnagar. 685/Hyd/2020 2018-19 686/Hyd/2020 2012-13 12. Kapil Infra Avenues Private Limited, Vijayawada. 687/Hyd/2020 2013-14 688/Hyd/2020 2012-13 689/Hyd/2020 2013-14 13. Preethi Foods and Villas Private Limited, Khammam. 690/Hyd/2020

M/s. PLL-Suncon Joint Venture vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Section 37 stage is Associated Builders v Delhi Development Authority [2015 (3) SCC 49]. The court had revisited and considered several previous decisions on the subject; after iterating Saw Pipes (supra) and various decisions outlining the FAO(OS) 373/2011 Page 33 of 44 principles, the Court held that unreasonable decisions too can be interpreted, on limited grounds: “The third juristic

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