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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

reassessment was thought for and ordered. He would also submit that in terms of Section 132A(3) read with Section 132(9A) of the IT Act, the DDIT (Inv.) was the requisition officer and was required to transfer the documents requisitioned to the AO within the statutory period of 15

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

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

reassessment was thought for and ordered. He would also submit that in terms of Section 132A(3) read with Section 132(9A) of the IT Act, the DDIT (Inv.) was the requisition officer and was required to transfer the documents requisitioned to the AO within the statutory period of 15

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

reassessment was thought for and ordered. He would also submit that in terms of Section 132A(3) read with Section 132(9A) of the IT Act, the DDIT (Inv.) was the requisition officer and was required to transfer the documents requisitioned to the AO within the statutory period of 15

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

reassessment was thought for and ordered. He would also submit that in terms of Section 132A(3) read with Section 132(9A) of the IT Act, the DDIT (Inv.) was the requisition officer and was required to transfer the documents requisitioned to the AO within the statutory period of 15

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

15,00,92,060/- after claiming deduction of ` 99,67,71,161/- under Section 10A of the Act. Assessment order came to be framed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 27.03.2006. The Assessing Officer reduced the claim of deduction from ` 99,67,71,161/- to ` 89,08,86,778/-. Notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued

Commissioner of Income Tax- IT and TP vs. M/s. Louis Berger International Inc.,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

15 of 137 relinquishing its right to receive a speaking order as contemplated under Section 17(5) of the Act. 4. Post the BoE being reassessed

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

15 of 137 relinquishing its right to receive a speaking order as contemplated under Section 17(5) of the Act. 4. Post the BoE being reassessed

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 1a8(sz;) o[ the Act, assessing officer computed t zol trn ltz 5 the total incor,re of the assessee at Rs.2,16,89,170.00. Flowever, after adjustmerrt of the refund for earlier assessment y3ars, the amount payabl,: bythe assessee was quantified at Rs.95,690.00. 7. Against rhe aforesaid order of assessment, assessee preferred appeal before r he Commissioner

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Akula Nageswara Rao

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

15. Thus, it is evident that the ACAR vide order dated 31.03.2006, has opined on the issue of applicability of the tax or otherwise on a transaction under KST Act and has not dealt with the issue under Section 5(2) of the Act. It is pertinent to note that though the aforesaid order could either have been revised

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

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

reassessment is not permissible, for the reasons articulated in Silverline (supra). There is no dispute that the revenue had issued a notice under Section 143 (2) but failed to complete the assessment. In these circumstances, the notice is not sustainable on this ground as well. 15

Sunil Kumar Ahuja vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

section 15 should be strictly made on the course of the search, or o information available with the related to the evidence foun assessment "can be arbitrary or nexus with the seized mate has to be made under this se seized material." (v) In the absence of a completed assessment can b assessment or reassessment

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar,

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 10Th April, 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Advocate Ms. Swapna Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Sanjay Bhowmick, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. The Assessment Years Involved In The Present Appeal Are Assessment Year 1999-2000 & Assessment Year 2000-01. By Order Dated 16.08.2012, This Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :-

reassessment proceedings for bringing to tax items which had escaped assessment, it would be open to an assessee to put forward 15 claims for deduction of any expenditure in respect of that income or the non-taxability of the items at all. Keeping in view the object and purpose of the proceedings under Section

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

reassessed in terms of Section 154 of the Act and upon the amount being crystalized the same was immediately refunded to the respondent and the question of payment of interests does not and cannot arise. 9. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent in all the shipping bills indicated the iron content

Commissioner of Income Tax-III., vs. Smt. Chirala Nivedita Reddy

reassessment notice, this time alleging that exemption claimed under Section 10(29) was inadmissible. He sought to add back a sum of ₹15

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

reassessment” in Section 132B shall be construed as references to “block assessment” . (emphasis applied) 26. Photocopy of warrant of authorisation issued in Form 45 under Section 112(I) of Income Tax Rules, pursuant whereto search was conducted at Assessee's premises on 28.11.1996 was produced before Tribunal, which are quoted in para 11.2 of Tribunal's order and relevant extract

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

reassess such income, profits or gains. It is, therefore, manifest that once assessment is reopened by issuing a notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 22 the previous under- assessment is set aside and the whole assessment proceedings start afresh. When once valid proceedings are started under Section 34(1)(b) the Income-tax Officer had not only the jurisdiction

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

15 period of two years, whereas, under Section 153(3) of the Act, the assessment, reassessment or recomputation has to be made

The Commissioner of Income Tax-V vs. Sri D.Manikya Prabhu

The appeal is allowed and order

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section 15 of the Himachal Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1968 read with Rule 61 so as to enable the assessing authority to frame the reassessment