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

142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 143 , 144 shall, so far as may be, apply; (c) the Assessing Officer, on determination of the undisclosed income of the block period in accordance with this Chapter, shall pass an order of assessment and determine the tax payable by him on the basis of such assessment; (d) the assets seized under

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

142(1) and 143(2) of Income-tax Act, 1961 alongwith detailed 53 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters questionnaire as also statutory notice u/s 16(2) alongwith detailed questionnaire under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 have been kept in the Paper Book prepared for submission to the Hon'ble Settlement Commission, a copy of which has already been

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

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

142(1) and 143(2) of Income-tax Act, 1961 alongwith detailed 53 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters questionnaire as also statutory notice u/s 16(2) alongwith detailed questionnaire under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 have been kept in the Paper Book prepared for submission to the Hon'ble Settlement Commission, a copy of which has already been

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

142(1) and 143(2) of Income-tax Act, 1961 alongwith detailed 53 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters questionnaire as also statutory notice u/s 16(2) alongwith detailed questionnaire under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 have been kept in the Paper Book prepared for submission to the Hon'ble Settlement Commission, a copy of which has already been

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

142(1) and 143(2) of Income-tax Act, 1961 alongwith detailed 53 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters questionnaire as also statutory notice u/s 16(2) alongwith detailed questionnaire under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 have been kept in the Paper Book prepared for submission to the Hon'ble Settlement Commission, a copy of which has already been

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

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

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections

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

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2. This court while admitting the matter framed the following questions of law:- DBITA No. 37/2009 “i) Whether the ITAT has erred in not having considered the issue of non-service of notice u/s 148 within the prescribed time frame despite this fact emerging from the assessment record? ii) Whether the ITAT was justified in law in having disallowed

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

reassessment proceedings. The assessees resisted the move to assess them, contending that they were not subjected to income tax laws of India as they had no permanent establishment. The AO by order dated 31.12.2008 held that the appellant has a fixed place PE and DAPE in India. Further, the AO also deemed 10% of the value of supplies made

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. RASA AGROTECH PRIVATE LTD.

Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

142(1) of the Act. After the Assessees filed ITA Nos. 453 & 464 of 2012 Page 3 of 12 their written submissions, fresh notices were issued to them under Section 143(2) of the Act. 4. As far as Mr. Arvinder Singh was concerned, the Assessing Officer („AO‟) completed the assessment under Section 158BC read with Section

M/S.MALLIKARJUNA RICE INDUSTRIES vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

2) ro 6 Section 147 of the Act, even where an assessrrcnr is made, so long as the notice is issued under Section l4g of the Act within four years from the end of rhe relevant assessment )ear, if the income chargeable to tax is under assessed, ir has to be deemed that such income had escaped assessment and thus

THE PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. M/S SRI RADHA KRISHNA VIHAR, KAKINADA

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

Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings No. 8923/Vig(1y NLG/2014-ll dated 30-1 1-2016 on the file of 2nd respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.VENKAT RAM REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: AGP FOR SERVICES

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

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

2 (2010) 5 SCC 747 3 (2004) 10 SCC 627 4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

2 (2010) 5 SCC 747 3 (2004) 10 SCC 627 4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

2 (2010) 5 SCC 747 3 (2004) 10 SCC 627 4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

2 (2010) 5 SCC 747 3 (2004) 10 SCC 627 4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

2 (2010) 5 SCC 747 3 (2004) 10 SCC 627 4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent