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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

reassess the duty leviable on such goods. 5. The scope of Section 17(4) and the exercise which is liable to be undertaken by the proper officer must also be appreciated in the backdrop of Rule 12

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

reassess the duty leviable on such goods. 5. The scope of Section 17(4) and the exercise which is liable to be undertaken by the proper officer must also be appreciated in the backdrop of Rule 12

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

reassessed the shipping bills and as such the order of the Learned Tribunal cannot be sustained in law? CUSTA NO. 14 OF 2025 REPORTABLE Page 3 of 50 B. Whether the Learned Tribunal has gone beyond its jurisdiction to award interest @12% p.a w.e.f 11.01.2011 till 5/6.09.2023 when admittedly the amount of excess duty to be refunded to the respondent

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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

reassess such income and AO should have the reason to believe and sub-section (2) of Section 148 provides that before issuing a notice for an intended assessment/reassessment under Section 147, the AO shall record his reason for doing so and in the case at hand reasons have been recorded the same should not have been interfered. (viii) Further reference

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

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

reassess such income and AO should have the reason to believe and sub-section (2) of Section 148 provides that before issuing a notice for an intended assessment/reassessment under Section 147, the AO shall record his reason for doing so and in the case at hand reasons have been recorded the same should not have been interfered. (viii) Further reference

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

reassess such income and AO should have the reason to believe and sub-section (2) of Section 148 provides that before issuing a notice for an intended assessment/reassessment under Section 147, the AO shall record his reason for doing so and in the case at hand reasons have been recorded the same should not have been interfered. (viii) Further reference

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

reassess such income and AO should have the reason to believe and sub-section (2) of Section 148 provides that before issuing a notice for an intended assessment/reassessment under Section 147, the AO shall record his reason for doing so and in the case at hand reasons have been recorded the same should not have been interfered. (viii) Further reference

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

12. Such a c,)ntention of the assessee was not acceprcd by the Tribunal. 'frilrunal took the view that once an assessment is reopened,, assessing officer can assess or reassess any other income chargeable to t;rx which lrad escaped assessment and u'hich comes to the notice o1 the assessing officer subsequendy. 1 l. Before r s, leamed counsel

K. Ranjeet Mohan, vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax,

reassessment order which has been affirmed by the Tribunal. There was neither any material on record nor any information with regard to sale and supply of Bitumen on which tax has been imposed. He further submits that an application under section 12

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s. BDR Projects Pvt. Ltd.

12 of the Act opens with the words “except as otherwise provided in this Act, or any other law for the time being in force, duties of customs ...” Section 28A opens with the words “notwithstanding anything contained in this Act”. As far as Section 28AA is concerned, it begins with a non-obstante clause that encompasses not only any judgment

Vardhaman College of Engineering vs. Dy.Director of Income Tax [Exemptions] - I

In the result, Writ Petition (227) No

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

reassessment proceedings, Paluram Dhananiya was represented and after his death his son Bhagirathi appeared and he submitted an application on 13.6.1966. The Assistant Superintendent of Land Records recommended for grant of lease for a period of 30 years and on the basis of said recommendation, decision was taken to grant lease in favour of Gowrishankar Ji for a period

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Akula Nageswara Rao

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

12. In view of the request made by the learned Counsel for the appellant company, in our opinion, we need not have to express any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order passed by the authority for Clarification and Advance Ruling in case No.AR.CLR.CR.25/2004-05 dated 24.08.2004. Accordingly the following: ORDER I. Without going into the merits

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 -V, vs. M/S Secunderabad Club

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

12. The subsequent ruling of a three judge bench decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v Kelvinator India Ltd (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) crystallizes the acceptable standard for upholding a reassessment notice (under Section

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

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 or reference under this Act, for which

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 147 clearly lays down that 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 Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Moschip Semiconductor Technology Ltd.,

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 148, and in earlier years also, the amount was held to be received in the corpus fund. 12. In our view, the learned Tribunal has rightly examined the controversy. It is significant to note that the learned Tribunal has further found that AO cannot initiate reassessment