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

145 is not applicable and hence there was no scope of best judgment assessment. 18. Sri Manish Goel, learned counsel for Revenue assailed order of Tribunal contending that it has erred in law in observing that there was no valid warrant of authorisation for making search at the premises of Assessee and findings in this regard are perverse. He submitted

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 of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s. Meghadoot Drillers,

145(3) and the assessee has accepted the discrepencies during the survey operation u/s. 133A and has surrendered a sum of Rs. 57,00,000/- in assessment year 2004-05 and Rs. 20,00,000/- in assessment year 2005-06? 7. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

reassessment action initiated by the respondent pertaining to Assessment Year [‘AY’] 2013-14. We take note of the principal challenge which now remains and pertains to the issue of surviving period. 2. The petitioner, in order to buttress its claim of the proceedings being time barred, has placed for our consideration the following chart: WP (C) NO 85/2023 ITEM

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Kumar Raja Associates

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

reassessment proceeding is not possible till a fresh assessment of the set aside case has been completed. This is so because, so long as assessment, as per appellate direction, or otherwise, is pending, the AO cannot have any reason to believe that income for the year has escaped assessment. Income cannot be said to have escaped assessment within the meaning

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

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

145 The Location Plan………..…………………………………………...152 The Exemplar…………………………………………………………160 CONCLUSION………….………………………....................................170 LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 75 of 171 PREFACE Since the issues raised in the above captioned appeals are the same, the above Appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. The present Appeals were heard together with LA.APP. 59/2007 captioned Bed Ram v. UOI & Anr. being argued

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

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

145 The Location Plan………..…………………………………………...152 The Exemplar…………………………………………………………160 CONCLUSION………….………………………....................................170 LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 75 of 171 PREFACE Since the issues raised in the above captioned appeals are the same, the above Appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. The present Appeals were heard together with LA.APP. 59/2007 captioned Bed Ram v. UOI & Anr. being argued

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

Commissionr of Income TAx-3 vs. M/s State Bank of Hyderabad

Bench: ANIS,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

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 Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.NCC - KNR JV

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 Pr. Commissioner of Incometax-4 vs. Smt. S. Uma Devi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 I vs. Smt. P. Seetha

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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. HMT Bearings Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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. TPS Laboratories Pvt. Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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