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

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

Section 131 of the IT Act. Letter sent by the DDIT (Inv.), Delhi, to the DCIT (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax), Special Range, Bhilai, who is the Assessing Officer (for brevity ‘the AO’) for initiating reassessment

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 131 of the IT Act. Letter sent by the DDIT (Inv.), Delhi, to the DCIT (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax), Special Range, Bhilai, who is the Assessing Officer (for brevity ‘the AO’) for initiating reassessment

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

Section 131 of the IT Act. Letter sent by the DDIT (Inv.), Delhi, to the DCIT (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax), Special Range, Bhilai, who is the Assessing Officer (for brevity ‘the AO’) for initiating reassessment

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals with cases where the importer

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals with cases where the importer

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

section 11 to Section 28. 91. It is stated that the said SCN was initially adjudicated upon by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) who by an order dated 3rd October 2012 sustained the demand raised against the Petitioner. 92. The appeal filed by the Petitioner against the said order was allowed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal

THE COMMISSIONER OCF INCOME TAX-I vs. M/S.BHARAT BIOTECH INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: :

reassessment order without considering the established legal principles as laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Rakesh Gupta vs. CIT, (2018) 405 ITR 213/303 ? c) Whether in facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in law in deleting the addition of Rs.22

PR COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 131 of the Act. The assessee furnished the information through its representative - RSM & Co./Pricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vide letters dated 16.03.2007, 09.04.2007, 27.02.2008, ITA 621/2017 & connected matters Page 7 of 85 24.03.2008 and 26.03.2008. The GE Group is a diversified technology, media and financial services company with products and services ranging from aircraft engines, power generation, water processing

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/S Foods Fats and Fertilisers Limited,

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

131 / 2009 Rajendra Kumar Jain, R/o Mangal Niwas, Vijaypada, Rampura, Kota ----Appellant Versus 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, SMC Jaipur 2. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kota 3. Income Tax Officer, Ward-I (i) Kota ----Respondent D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 414 / 2009 Alokik Kumar Jain R/o Mangal Niwas, Vijaypada, Rampura, Kota ----Appellant Versus 1. Income Tax Appellate

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

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

reassessment of market value using a fair and just approach. Learned Counsel clarifies that they are seeking compensation based on actual usage and future potentiality of the acquired land. It is submitted that if the land is capable of being used for building purposes in the near future, its valuation must reflect such capability. Reliance is placed on Clause

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

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

reassessment of market value using a fair and just approach. Learned Counsel clarifies that they are seeking compensation based on actual usage and future potentiality of the acquired land. It is submitted that if the land is capable of being used for building purposes in the near future, its valuation must reflect such capability. Reliance is placed on Clause

M/s. Kausalya Shelters Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 34 of the Act of 1996, shall not/ought not disturb the interpretation given by the learned Arbitrator, merely because another interpretation of the same Clause is also possible. Similarly, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Arbitrator in paragraph 51 of the Impugned Award is a plausible interpretation of the Clause 8(A)(c) of the sub-lease deed

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Gowra Leasing AND Finance Ltd

Appeal is allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

reassessment proceedings are pending, the (2 of 4) [ITA-271/2008] entire assessment is open and not confined to scope of reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer?” 3. However, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of S. Kasliwal & Co. vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in DB Income Tax Appeal No.53/2004

Pinna Nageswara RAo, vs. Commissioner of Income tax, IV (A.P)

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX-7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S SRI VENKATESWARA PADMAVATHI COMPAY, KHAMMAM DIST

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

Kuchipudi Krishna Kishore vs. THE DCIT, CIR-2[1],

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

Commissioner of Income Tax -II, vs. M/S Kasila Farms Ltd.,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

THE PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. L. SURYAKANTHAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires