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

153, assess or reassess such income. 10. In the instant case, the Tribunal, while accepting the plea of the assessee that merely on change of opinion, the concluded assessment was being reopened, noticed that the Assessing Officer had already gone into specific issues arising under Section 10A of the Act. It can be noticed that from the reasons recorded

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

ii) General power of superintendence must be distinguished from the interference in the adjudication process. The authority in which a discretion is vested can be compelled to exercise that discretion, but not to exercise it in any particular manner. iii) The Court must be mindful of the fact that the adjudication process must be free from any kind of bias

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

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

ii) General power of superintendence must be distinguished from the interference in the adjudication process. The authority in which a discretion is vested can be compelled to exercise that discretion, but not to exercise it in any particular manner. iii) The Court must be mindful of the fact that the adjudication process must be free from any kind of bias

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

ii) General power of superintendence must be distinguished from the interference in the adjudication process. The authority in which a discretion is vested can be compelled to exercise that discretion, but not to exercise it in any particular manner. iii) The Court must be mindful of the fact that the adjudication process must be free from any kind of bias

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

ii) General power of superintendence must be distinguished from the interference in the adjudication process. The authority in which a discretion is vested can be compelled to exercise that discretion, but not to exercise it in any particular manner. iii) The Court must be mindful of the fact that the adjudication process must be free from any kind of bias

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s.ZENOTECH LABORATORIES LIMITED

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 153 A (1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003544 ITA No.311/2022 Page 3 of 4 ii. Assessments and reassessments

Sunil Kumar Ahuja vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

3. incorrect in assessee, wh the assessee. Section 153A search. The i that proceedi found during 4. has relied on Meeta Gutgu challenge bef 5. that additions additions had Private Limi which had m purchase of l ultimate bene o. 97 of 2023 er Section 153A (1)(b) of the 4,292/-. Aggrieved against the re the Commissioner of Incom

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. S.P.Office Needs Pvt Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

3. The next undisputed fact as noted by the AO in the Office Note of the assessment order dated 29"^ December, 2008 is as under: "1.There is no incriminating document pertaining to the assessee for this assessment year in the seized record found from the residence of the assessee." 4. The third important fact, which is again not in dispute

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

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

ii) Whether the ITAT was justified in observing that the AO has initiated reassessment proceedings during the pendency of a fresh assessment of the set aside case, ignoring the fact that in the present case the ITAT vide its earlier order dated 29.05.98 has held the assessment made under Section 144 as invalid and not legally correct and thus

Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Krosur

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

3. I.T.A.No.148/2011 was admitted by a bench of this court vide order dated 29.08.2011 on the following substantial question of law: (i) What is the reasonable time within which the proceedings have to be initiated under Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, as during the relevant period, the statute did not prescribe any period of limitation

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

ii) Whether the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the excess amount payable to the assessee towards mesne profits/compensation for unauthorized use and occupation of the premises accrued to the assessee only upon the passing of the decree by the Civil Court on 14.10.1998?” 2. The facts necessary for deciding the appeal are that the assessee, a private

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

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

reassessment of market value using a fair and just approach. Learned Counsel clarifies that they are seeking compensation based on actual usage and future potentiality of the acquired land. It is submitted that if the land is capable of being used for building purposes in the near future, its valuation must reflect such capability. Reliance is placed on Clause

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

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

reassessment of market value using a fair and just approach. Learned Counsel clarifies that they are seeking compensation based on actual usage and future potentiality of the acquired land. It is submitted that if the land is capable of being used for building purposes in the near future, its valuation must reflect such capability. Reliance is placed on Clause

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

THE PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. L. SURYAKANTHAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

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