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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

reassess such income and AO should have the reason to believe and sub-section (2) of Section 148 provides that before issuing a notice for an intended assessment/reassessment under Section 147

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 147 of ite Act. ,rc finc.l thaq prior to Direct Tax Lari,s (funcndnrcnt) Act, 1987, rcopening could be dorre rLnclcr thc above two condirions and fullilLncnt of rhc s.ricl l [2002] 25$ trR I (FB) ' [20r01 320 rTR s61 (SC) 9 con litions irlone conferred jurisdiction on t n e fus 'ssinq Officer to make a back assessmr

M/s. Dakshin Infrastructures Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

reassessment under Section 147 of the Act overlooking the contention of the appellant that the first proviso to Section 147

M/s Kausalya Agro Farms and Developers pvt. ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

reassessment under Section 147 of the Act overlooking the contention of the appellant that the first proviso to Section 147

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

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

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central vs. Shri. Isanaka Mastan Reddy

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

147 of 2023  Orissa Bengal Carrier Limited Through Director Ravi Agrawal S/o Late Shri Ratan Kumar Agrawal Aged About 36 Years, Jeevan Bima Marg Pandri Raipur Tehsil And District Raipur 492004, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Union Of India Through Secretary, Central Board Of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi, District : New Delhi, Delhi 2. Chief Commissioner Of Income

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