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

13. In Ram Commercial Enterprises Limited’s case (6 supra), the Delhi High Court held after considering the above judgment in Manasvi’s case (14 supra ) as follows: “Merely because this court while hearing" this application may be inclined to form an opinion that the material available on record could have enabled the initiation of penalty proceedings, that cannot

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

13. Consequently, on 16th April 1994, the Collector of Customs (Preventive) issued SCN calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why the goods under seizure valued at Rs. 1,04,118.52 should not be confiscated, and customs duty in the sum of Rs. 5,07,274 should not be levied in terms of Section 28 (1

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

1)(a)(ii) of the KVAT Act. However, insofar as it relates to Telecommunication equipment, the same requires to be notified by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under the KVAT Act and the State Government has been issuing Notifications specifying the products which would be treated as IT products;  Notification No. FD 43 CSL 07(02) dated

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

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

reassessment under Section 147, not a case for rectification wherein the tax liability has been enhanced. 6. Learned counsel for the revenue justifying the orders of the authorities submitted that Section 80 of the Act provides for submission of return for losses. In terms of the said Section, it is mandatory that the return for losses has to be filed

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

13 II. The power of reassessment: a brief overview ............................ 33 III. The submissions addressed ...................................................... 46 IV. Evaluation of the Court ............................................................ 82 A. Declared values and the power of reappraisal ....................... 82 B. Exploring the concepts of abandonment and waiver .......... 104 C. Rejection of declared values: Assessing its validity ............. 119 D. Value enhancement on the basis of NIDB data .................... 122 V. Disposition

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

13 II. The power of reassessment: a brief overview ............................ 33 III. The submissions addressed ...................................................... 46 IV. Evaluation of the Court ............................................................ 82 A. Declared values and the power of reappraisal ....................... 82 B. Exploring the concepts of abandonment and waiver .......... 104 C. Rejection of declared values: Assessing its validity ............. 119 D. Value enhancement on the basis of NIDB data .................... 122 V. Disposition

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

13 (2022) 1 Centax 190 (Bom) CUSTA NO. 14 OF 2025 REPORTABLE Page 18 of 50 under Section 17 was also considered and the Division Bench held that reliance placed on Section 17 is misplaced as the said section has undergone a radical change with effect from 08.04.2011 whereas the exports pertain to period prior to 2011. With this reasoning

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

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 :-

b) no refund is due to him. It is significant that the acknowledgment is not done by any assessing officer, but mostly by ministerial staff. Can it be said that any 'assessment" is done by them? The reply is an emphatic "no'". The intimation under Section 143(1)(a) was deemed to be a notice of demand under Section

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

The appeal is allowed

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

b) On the ground specified in clause (d) of sub-section (1) shall be entertained unless the Court is satisfied: 2026:JHHC:1680-DB 21 (i) that the petitioner was at the time of the marriage ignorant of the facts alleged; (ii) that proceedings have been instituted in the case of a marriage solemnised before the commencement of this

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

13. The aforesaid order was challenged in an appeal under Section 24(1) of the KST Act by the petitioner. A Division Bench of this Court, by an order dated 13.01.2006 granted liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate application before the Advance Ruling Authority as provided under Section 4 of the KST Act without expressing any opinion

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

13. Section 132A(3) of the IT Act would purport that where any books of account, other documents or assets have been delivered to the requisitioning officer, the provisions of sub-sections (4-A) to (14) (both inclusive) of Section 132 and Section 132B shall, so far as may be, apply as if such books of account, other documents

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

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

13. Section 132A(3) of the IT Act would purport that where any books of account, other documents or assets have been delivered to the requisitioning officer, the provisions of sub-sections (4-A) to (14) (both inclusive) of Section 132 and Section 132B shall, so far as may be, apply as if such books of account, other documents

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

13. Section 132A(3) of the IT Act would purport that where any books of account, other documents or assets have been delivered to the requisitioning officer, the provisions of sub-sections (4-A) to (14) (both inclusive) of Section 132 and Section 132B shall, so far as may be, apply as if such books of account, other documents

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

13. Section 132A(3) of the IT Act would purport that where any books of account, other documents or assets have been delivered to the requisitioning officer, the provisions of sub-sections (4-A) to (14) (both inclusive) of Section 132 and Section 132B shall, so far as may be, apply as if such books of account, other documents

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

1)(n) of the BR Act, the doing of all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the promotion or advancement of the business of the company. Thus reading of Sections 5(b), (c) and Section 6 of the BR Act along with Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act, it becomes clear that the income received

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

1)(n) of the BR Act, the doing of all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the promotion or advancement of the business of the company. Thus reading of Sections 5(b), (c) and Section 6 of the BR Act along with Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act, it becomes clear that the income received

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

1)(n) of the BR Act, the doing of all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the promotion or advancement of the business of the company. Thus reading of Sections 5(b), (c) and Section 6 of the BR Act along with Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act, it becomes clear that the income received