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

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

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

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

reassessment of damages. This is what was the theme of discourse in Santosh Devi (supra) and in a later decision in Puttamma (supra). In Puttamma (supra), the Supreme Court called upon the State to explain inaction on its part in the context of authorization given to the Central Government by Section 163-A (3) to make improvements on account

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

3) of the Act, the assessment, reassessment or recomputation has to be made on the assessee or any person in consequence, or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under Section 250, 254, 260,262, 263 and 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Moschip Semiconductor Technology Ltd.,

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

reassessment proceedings, simply to verify the contents of the return, unlike before it was vested in him in making regular assessment. It was found that the time-limit available for issuance of notice and making assessment under Section 143(3) had expired, but then, on that count, he cannot assume the jurisdiction by venturing to make assessment under Section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

11 VS. M/S PUNJAB AND SINDH BANK, wherein by placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in MAXOPP INVESTMENT PVT LTD supra, the Delhi High Court held that the assessee had earned the revenue on the shares held as stock in trade only by quirk of fate and held that no substantial question of law is involved

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 17(4) and gives up its right to question

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 17(4) and gives up its right to question

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

3) read with Section 147 of the Act determined the income of the assessee at Rs.51,71,70,670/- and made following additions: (a) disallowance of contributions made to funds -Rs.10,86,43,782/-. (b) additional loss claimed on sale of securities - Rs.8,28,65,052/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

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

11,90,504/- (c) Besides, there were other items which had been wrongly claimed as expenses and disallowance under Section 14A was not worked out.” 3. In W.P.(C) 2795/2008 (for AY 2005-06) the allegations and grounds of reassessment

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

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