The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) vs. M/s.Madhu Enterprises

Bench: The Learned

Section 147 read with 143(3) of Digitally Signed By:TARUN RANA Signing Date:13.05.2025 15:59:36 Signature Not Verified ITA 127/2025 Page 4 of 10 the Act. 12. The reassessment

THE COMM. OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S IJM (INDIA) INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the appeal (ITAT/381/2017) stands dismissed

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

reassessment for the A.Y. 2004-05 are not based on mere change of opinion? We have heard Mr. P. K. Bhowmick learned counsel for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J. P. Khaitan, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Swapna Das, learned Advocate for the respondent/assessee. The short issue which falls for consideration is whether the Tribunal was right in setting aside

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

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

143(3) of the Act ? b) Vhether the amount of Rural Development Gss reinrbuned by the Food Corporadon of India in :rccordance wirh the provisiors of Ap.Rural Dcvelopmcnr Ccss Act, 1996 .s atrade receipt and is ;r-sscssable as income rvhen the assqssee did not dcbit the liabiliry to pay cess to the p6cl_ Account ? 4. First question is whether

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

143 ELT 299 CUSTA NO. 14 OF 2025 REPORTABLE Page 39 of 50 40. The authority placed reliance on the decision of the tribunal in Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Limited Versus Collector of Customs, Bombay 26 wherein it was held that correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes under Section 154 and Section

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

143(2) of the Act way back on 1st October 2008 obviously meant that a copy of the order dated 5th April 2007 of the ITAT was received prior to that date. Therefore, for the purposes of these appeals the Court will proceed on the basis of the statement made by the Revenue itself in para 14 of the additional

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S Sri Krishna Drugs Ltd.,

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

143(3), it was specifically pointed out and explained to the AO by the assessee that the reason for the heavy expenditure claimed under the head of legal expenses was that this expenses was in respect of Advocate fee and cost of Civil Suit filed in the High Court for possession and eviction against its tenant/OBC. This has not been

Rachit V Shah vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax-7

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

143(3) of the Act REFER Annexure ) This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 21:03:09 OLD LAW /INITIAL NOTICE U/S 148 30.06.2021 (ANNEXURE P-4 PAGE

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

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 land of posh colonies such

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

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 land of posh colonies such

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

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 land of posh colonies such

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

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 land of posh colonies such