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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

11. It was this decision which came to be subjected to challenge before the CESTAT. The CESTAT in CUSAA 27/2022 as well as CUSAA 126/2022 had taken an identical view. It has principally held that once the importer concedes to the reassessment undertaken by the proper officer in terms of Section

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

11. It was this decision which came to be subjected to challenge before the CESTAT. The CESTAT in CUSAA 27/2022 as well as CUSAA 126/2022 had taken an identical view. It has principally held that once the importer concedes to the reassessment undertaken by the proper officer in terms of 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

11 GSTR 321 (SC) CUSTA NO. 14 OF 2025 REPORTABLE Page 20 of 50 under Section 11B(1) of the Act and not on the expiry of the said period from the date on which the order of refund is made. It is submitted that in the instant case the application for refund under Section

M/S.MALLIKARJUNA RICE INDUSTRIES vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

11. Initially assessn1en[ procecciing was taken up for scrutmy and assessment orcler was passed under Section M3(3) of the Act. Subsequently-, a vie."v was taken by the assessing officerthat the orrrstanding RD. Crss is required to be treated as income of the appellant. .Ihe assessnrent 7 i 'r order nas s ugh.t to be rectified under Section

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly referred to hereinafter as ‘the Act’) assailing the common order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HCJ & NTRJ I.T.T.A.Nos.259 of 2022 & batch 2 Hyderabad Bench ‘A’, Hyderabad (briefly referred to hereinafter as ‘Tribunal’) disposing of the following appeals corresponding to the relevant assessment years: Sl.No. & Appellant

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly referred to hereinafter as ‘the Act’) assailing the common order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HCJ & NTRJ I.T.T.A.Nos.259 of 2022 & batch 2 Hyderabad Bench ‘A’, Hyderabad (briefly referred to hereinafter as ‘Tribunal’) disposing of the following appeals corresponding to the relevant assessment years: Sl.No. & Appellant

Pinna Nageswara RAo, vs. Commissioner of Income tax, IV (A.P)

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

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 Bagh, Kalindi Colony, Siddhartha Nagar Extension, Sunlight Colony, Jiwan Nagar, Desu Colony, Jangpura and Rajdoot

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX-7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S SRI VENKATESWARA PADMAVATHI COMPAY, KHAMMAM DIST

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

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 Bagh, Kalindi Colony, Siddhartha Nagar Extension, Sunlight Colony, Jiwan Nagar, Desu Colony, Jangpura and Rajdoot

Kuchipudi Krishna Kishore vs. THE DCIT, CIR-2[1],

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

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 Bagh, Kalindi Colony, Siddhartha Nagar Extension, Sunlight Colony, Jiwan Nagar, Desu Colony, Jangpura and Rajdoot

Commissioner of Income Tax -II, vs. M/S Kasila Farms Ltd.,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

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 Bagh, Kalindi Colony, Siddhartha Nagar Extension, Sunlight Colony, Jiwan Nagar, Desu Colony, Jangpura and Rajdoot

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

The appeal is allowed

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

11. The amount awarded under Section 125 CrPC is adjustable against the amount awarded under Section 24 of the Act.” 85. Apart from the aforesaid factors enumerated hereinabove, certain additional factors would also be relevant for determining the quantum of maintenance payable.” 75. Since herein, appellant-wife is lawyer by profession, therefore, this Court is quoting relevant paragraph from case

Sunil Kumar Ahuja vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

11. factual aspec satisfy oursel authorization 12. consequentia after search w authorization of Income Ta Kumar Bans M/s M3M In C-13, Sushan day is for Ba Bansal, Smt. Tower-1, DL o. 97 of 2023 found from the premises of the crores in the hands of the assess Learned counsel for the Revenu noted that no incriminating mate earch

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

Bench: The Learned

11. However, as noted above, the Revenue’s appeal in the present case does not arise in respect of the said decision. It arises from an assessment order dated 29.12.2017 framed by the AO under 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

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S Sri Krishna Drugs Ltd.,

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

reassessment beyond the expiry of limitation cannot be done unless income has escaped assessment by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year. Therefore, the reasoning assigned by the learned Commissioner (A) to give the nod to the alleged validity

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-4 vs. Sri. Krishna Chigullapally

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

11. Now, we shall analyse Entry 53 of Schedule III of the KVAT Act read with the Notification No. FD 43 CSL 07(02) dated April 4, 2007 issued by the State Government, which is for consideration in these present Revision Petitions before us. 12. Entry 53 of Schedule III of the KVAT Act reads thus: “IT Products including telecommunication

M/s. Kausalya Shelters Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 34 of the Act of 1996, shall not/ought not disturb the interpretation given by the learned Arbitrator, merely because another interpretation of the same Clause is also possible. Similarly, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Arbitrator in paragraph 51 of the Impugned Award is a plausible interpretation of the Clause 8(A)(c) of the sub-lease deed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. RASA AGROTECH PRIVATE LTD.

Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

11. The Court notices that the above assertion, both in CM No. 13616/2012 came to be filed in ITA No. 453/2012 and in CM No. 14085/2012 in ITA No. 464 of 2012 that the order of the ITAT dated 5th April 2007 was ITA Nos. 453 & 464 of 2012 Page 6 of 12 received only on 29th July