CHENNAKESAVA PHARMACEUTICALS VIJAYAWADA vs. THE COMI.OF INCOMETAX VIJ.

In the result, all the appeals are allowed setting aside the common

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

d Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals[2]. 2. For the levy of penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, the assessing officer has to form his own opinion and record satisfaction of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in his proceedings, otherwise it would be a jurisdictional defect. In the present case, no such

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

D' IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK M/1, BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD STRP NO. 08 OF 2022 AND CONNECTED MATTERS 15 BHAVANINAGAR, SUDDAGUNTE PALYA BENGALURU-560 029. REP. BY ITS MANAGER …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. RAVI RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE) THIS STRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 65(1) OF KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX 2003 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.03.2021 PASSED IN STA NOS. 20 TO 22/2019

The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. Smt P Sujana

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

D G M E N T This appeal is filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) against the order dated 27.02.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Bangalore (‘Tribunal’ for short) relating to the assessment year 2006-07. 2. The appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial

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

The appeal is allowed

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

D. Bhagat (Mrs.), (1994)1 SCC 337, the wife alleged in her written statement that her husband was suffering from “mental problems and paranoid disorder”. The wife’s lawyer also levelled allegations of “lunacy” and “insanity” against the husband and his family while he was conducting a cross-examination. TheHon’ble Apex Court held these allegations against the husband

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

1. This appeal has been filed by the Customs Department under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act) challenging the order passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in Customs Appeal No. 76391 of 2024 filed by the respondent herein dated 07.01.2024. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

D. Value enhancement on the basis of NIDB data .................... 122 V. Disposition ................................................................................... 137 YASHWANT VARMA, J. I. BACKGROUND 1. The instant appeals raise a challenge to the decision rendered by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal1 holding that the appellants, having conceded to the valuation undertaken by the proper officer as contemplated under Section 17(5) of the Customs

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

D. Value enhancement on the basis of NIDB data .................... 122 V. Disposition ................................................................................... 137 YASHWANT VARMA, J. I. BACKGROUND 1. The instant appeals raise a challenge to the decision rendered by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal1 holding that the appellants, having conceded to the valuation undertaken by the proper officer as contemplated under Section 17(5) of the Customs

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

reassessment on the dictates of the higher authorities sitting at Delhi and Jabalpur. 71. Once having held that the reassessment started at the dictation of the higher authorities and thereafter, during reassessment process too continuous instructions were imparted and even the AO obtained instructions, therefore, the end result would be same as the bias would exist. Decision of reassessment, reassessment

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

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

reassessment on the dictates of the higher authorities sitting at Delhi and Jabalpur. 71. Once having held that the reassessment started at the dictation of the higher authorities and thereafter, during reassessment process too continuous instructions were imparted and even the AO obtained instructions, therefore, the end result would be same as the bias would exist. Decision of reassessment, reassessment

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

reassessment on the dictates of the higher authorities sitting at Delhi and Jabalpur. 71. Once having held that the reassessment started at the dictation of the higher authorities and thereafter, during reassessment process too continuous instructions were imparted and even the AO obtained instructions, therefore, the end result would be same as the bias would exist. Decision of reassessment, reassessment

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

reassessment on the dictates of the higher authorities sitting at Delhi and Jabalpur. 71. Once having held that the reassessment started at the dictation of the higher authorities and thereafter, during reassessment process too continuous instructions were imparted and even the AO obtained instructions, therefore, the end result would be same as the bias would exist. Decision of reassessment, reassessment

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. The Agrasen Coop. Urban Bank Ltd.,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

D deals with deductions in respect of certain incomes. Section 80P is a special provision providing for the deduction in respect of income of co-operative societies. As defined in Section 2(19) of the Act, “co-operative society” means “a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, or under any other law for the time

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Andhra Bank Employees Co.Operative Bank Limited

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

D deals with deductions in respect of certain incomes. Section 80P is a special provision providing for the deduction in respect of income of co-operative societies. As defined in Section 2(19) of the Act, “co-operative society” means “a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, or under any other law for the time

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. The A.P.Vardhaman(Mahila)Cooperative Urban

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

D deals with deductions in respect of certain incomes. Section 80P is a special provision providing for the deduction in respect of income of co-operative societies. As defined in Section 2(19) of the Act, “co-operative society” means “a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, or under any other law for the time

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S The A.P.Mahesh Coop. Urban Bank Ltd,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

D deals with deductions in respect of certain incomes. Section 80P is a special provision providing for the deduction in respect of income of co-operative societies. As defined in Section 2(19) of the Act, “co-operative society” means “a co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, or under any other law for the time

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

d bcibri: the asscssing officer at the time of original assessllrcrlr:rnd the rt,l'orc, the reopening was sought to 5 be done or the basis of change of opinion, assessing officer took tlre vi :q.that the reopening was being done ",,ithin for,rr yrars f rom .h: end ol the relevant assessment

Dr.D. Siva Sankara Rao-HUF vs. I.T.O. Ward-2, Eluru

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act"), by the appellants/petitioner herein for the public purpose of planned development of Delhi. 3. The said land, along with land in three other villages, namely Khirzahad [sic: Khizrabad], Kilolari [sic: Kilokari] and Chak Chilla, was notified by LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 82 of 171 the Government, vide Notification

P.V.S.Raju vs. The Addl. C.I.T.

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

11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act"), by the appellants/petitioner herein for the public purpose of planned development of Delhi. 3. The said land, along with land in three other villages, namely Khirzahad [sic: Khizrabad], Kilolari [sic: Kilokari] and Chak Chilla, was notified by LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 82 of 171 the Government, vide Notification