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

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

The appeal is allowed

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

C) is concerned, is hereby affirmed. 71. Now coming to the issue of permanent alimony which is the subject matter in the F.A.No. 213 of 2019. It has been contended by the appellant/ wife that the permanent alimony as determined by the learned Family Court is not based upon the proper calculation as such requires interference by this Court

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

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

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

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

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 -V, vs. M/S Secunderabad Club

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

1.--Production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the foregoing proviso. Explanation 2. - xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx".. 11. This Court notices that Phool Chand Bajrang Lal (supra) is an authority

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

C' BENCH, BENGALURU IN ITA NO.1372/BANG/2014 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 29.02.2016. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee. The subject

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, vs. Mars TelecomSystems (P) Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

13:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document -8- ITA-96-2012 (O&M) Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

c) of the Act namely ITA No.164/2009 dated 04.12.2018, the matter was remitted. Therefore, the issue involved in substantial question of law Nos.4 and 5 be remitted for fresh consideration to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that in order to attract the applicability of Section