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

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

reassessment was suggested. 16 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters (G) Learned counsel would submit that as per Section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

reassessment was suggested. 16 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters (G) Learned counsel would submit that as per Section

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

reassessment was suggested. 16 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters (G) Learned counsel would submit that as per Section

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals with cases where the importer

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals with cases where the importer

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

reassessment proceedings under this Section merely by showing that other income which had been assessee originally was at too high a figure except in cases 16

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, vs. M/S Sigachi Laboratories Ltd.,

The appeals are allowed in the above terms

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 16 (1) of the Gift Tax Act on the ground that condition precedent for reassessment of the proceedings under

Smt.Sudia Indira vs. The Income Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal from order stand dismissed

16. Lastly, learned advocate Ms. Mehta relied on decision in case of  Vidhyadhar (supra) so as to submit that according to section 54 of the  Transfer of Property Act, sale could become complete when payment of  whole price at the time of execution of sale is made.  According to her,  the price constitutes an essential ingredient of the transaction

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 :-

Section 147 of the Act is for the benefit of the revenue and not an assessee and the assessee cannot be permitted to convert the reassessment proceedings 16

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

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

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

16. The Assessing Authority has recorded a finding that it has examined voluminous transactions to unearth a different factual matrix. It has further been held that petitioner did not produce intercompany purchase agreement executed between it and the DAP before ACAR and therefore, the advance ruling is inapplicable as it is based on insufficient information. In this connection

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

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

Section 143 (2) but failed to complete the assessment. In these circumstances, the notice is not sustainable on this ground as well. 15. For the above reasons, the impugned reassessment notices and all subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed. The writ petitions are allowed in the above terms, without order on costs. S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE) SANJEEV SACHDEVA (JUDGE) NOVEMBER 16

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Kalyani Wines

In the result, I find this appeal bereft of merit and accordingly,

Bench: Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Robin Phukan

16-8-2010; (ii) The application for setting aside the award filed by the respondent in the District Court, Kamrup did not meet the requirement of Section 34 of the Act and did not satisfy any of the grounds stated in Sub-Section (2) thereof. (iii) The dispute, when referred to arbitrator for adjudication, it is not open

The Prl Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Institute of Development and Research in Banking Technology

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

16 assessee. He forms an opinion. The reassessment will be invalid because the Assessing Officer had formed an opinion in the original assessment, though he had not recorded his reasons." (Emphasis Supplied) 19. It is also further held that Revenue is not without remedy and it can invoke power under Section

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s. BDR Projects Pvt. Ltd.

16. Aggrieved by the above order of the CEGAT, the Customs Department went in appeal before the Supreme Court. The plea of the Department before the Supreme Court was that once the Commissioner (Preventive) had been appointed as Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay by virtue of Notifications Nos. 250/83 and 251/83, issued by the Central Government under Section

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt.Anitha Sanghi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

reassess under Section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under Section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April 2001. 9. From perusal of Section 14A of the Act, it is evident that for the purposes of computing

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

reassessment or recomputation has to be made on the assessee or any person in consequence, or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under Section 250, 254, 260,262, 263 and 264 or in an order of any court in a proceeding otherwise than by way of appeal or reference under this Act, for which