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

1) of section 142, setting forth his total income including the undisclosed income for the block period: Provided that no notice under section 148 is required to be issued for the purpose of proceeding under this Chapter ; (b) the Assessing Officer shall proceed to determine the undisclosed income of the block period in the manner laid down in section 158BB

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

143 (3) of the Act. The assessing officer later passed orders under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act levying a penalty of Rs.50,000, Rs.62,000 and Rs.70,985/- respectively for each of the above three years. 4. Challenging the same, the assessee filed appeals to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the said appeals were allowed

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

143(1) of the Act cannot be treated as an order of assessment. In the instant case, admittedly, no original assessment was made in case of the assessee. The assessee has made a claim in the return filed in response to a notice under Section 148 of the Act. 7. In V.JAGAN MOHAN RAO supra, a three judge bench

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

143(3) read with Section 147 of the IT Act for all the years under consideration except allowing the relief to the assessee on the issue relating to the levy of interest under Section 139(8) and Section 217 of the A.Y. 1988-89. h) Feeling aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the assessee preferred appeal

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

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

143(3) read with Section 147 of the IT Act for all the years under consideration except allowing the relief to the assessee on the issue relating to the levy of interest under Section 139(8) and Section 217 of the A.Y. 1988-89. h) Feeling aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the assessee preferred appeal

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

143(3) read with Section 147 of the IT Act for all the years under consideration except allowing the relief to the assessee on the issue relating to the levy of interest under Section 139(8) and Section 217 of the A.Y. 1988-89. h) Feeling aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the assessee preferred appeal

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

143(3) read with Section 147 of the IT Act for all the years under consideration except allowing the relief to the assessee on the issue relating to the levy of interest under Section 139(8) and Section 217 of the A.Y. 1988-89. h) Feeling aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the assessee preferred appeal

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-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

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

1) (as it stood then) are attracted. Therefore, the theory as propounded by the respondent that the assessment made at the first instance was a provisional assessment is outrightly rejected. 32. We are also prompted to examine as to what would fall within the scope of Section 154 of the Act which deals with correction/clerical errors etc. Section 154 states

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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- IT and TP vs. M/s. Louis Berger International Inc.,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

143 (Tri. Delhi), that in these decisions, there is no issue of passing an order under Section 17(5) of the Act, after passing of Bills of entry within fifteen days, hence these decisions are distinguishable and not applicable.‖ 11. It was this decision which came to be subjected to challenge before the CESTAT. The CESTAT in CUSAA 27/2022

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

143 (Tri. Delhi), that in these decisions, there is no issue of passing an order under Section 17(5) of the Act, after passing of Bills of entry within fifteen days, hence these decisions are distinguishable and not applicable.‖ 11. It was this decision which came to be subjected to challenge before the CESTAT. The CESTAT in CUSAA 27/2022

COMMR OF INCOME TAX [TDS], HYDERABAD vs. M/S JAYADARSHINI HOUSING PVT LTD., HYDERABAD

Appeals are hereby dismissed by

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

143(3) read with Section 147 on 31.12.2007. 12 This was carried in appeal by the assessee and was successful partially. The assessee being aggrieved by the finding recorded by the Appellate Commissioner that reopening being proper, filed further appeal before the Tribunal and the revenue being aggrieved by the grant of partial relief to the assessee by the Appellate

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Moschip Semiconductor Technology Ltd.,

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

reassessment proceedings, simply to verify the contents of the return, unlike before it was vested in him in making regular assessment. It was found that the time-limit available for issuance of notice and making assessment under Section 143(3) had expired, but then, on that count, he cannot assume the jurisdiction by venturing to make assessment under Section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

143(2) of the Act. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 31.12.2002 inter alia held that since exempted dividend does not form part of income, the assessee is not entitled to disallowance of proportionate expenses as required under Section 14A of the Act. Accordingly, an addition of Rs.20,38,002/- was made by the Assessing Officer. The aforesaid order

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

143(1) to the assessee. The assessing officer by an order dated 26.03.1999 passed an order of assessment and inter alia quantified the total taxable income at Rs.8,38,38,080/-. 100% Depreciation claimed by the assessee on pollution control equipment worth Rs.4,93,00,000/- was 6 disallowed and 80% interest on the amount advanced to Madhya Pradesh State

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

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

reassessment notice were identical. The AO felt that mixing up of trading sales and absence of unit specific profit and loss accounts led to excess deduction under Section 80IB to the extent of ₹ 1,73,77,558/-. In this petition, it is urged that the notice under Section 143