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

17. The scope and effect of section 147 as substituted with effect from 1st April, 1989, as also Sections 148 to 152 are substantially different from the provisions as they stood prior to such substitution. Under the old provisions of Section 147, separate clauses (a) and (b) laid down the circumstances under which income escaping assessment for the past assessment

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

17-9-2014 : 1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in upholding initiation of reassessment proceedings under Section

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

M/S NMDC LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

17 of the Contract Act. Both the Hindu Marriage Act and Contract Act are not pari materia as the former deals with marriages and the other deals with contract and commerce. Therefore, the definition of fraud given under the Contract 2026:JHHC:1680-DB 22 Act cannot be brought with lock, stock and barrel to a marriage which is sacrament

Sunil Kumar Ahuja vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

17 I attest to the accuracy and authencity of this order/judgment ITA No material was of the Act o which may h Section 153- since no suc respondent-a Section 153-A 15. under:- o. 97 of 2023 recovered. If there was any indi or suppression of income or an have been recovered from

The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) vs. M/s.Madhu Enterprises

Bench: The Learned

reassessment notice – which was issued beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year – was barred by limitation. The said objections were rejected by the AO. 15. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 29.12.2017, the Assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A). 16. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the Assessee’s challenge

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-4 vs. Sri. Krishna Chigullapally

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

17. The Allahabad High Court, in the facts of that case has distinguished Nokia India Case and held thus: “9. On the submissions made and decision relied on, we have no hesitation in holding that all the material was before the authorities concerned Judgment in State of Punjab v. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., (2014) 16 SCC 410, could not have

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

reassessment lt,rs to b, based on fulfillment of certain pr,r- cor Ci:ion and if the concept of "change '.>f op rir>n ' is rerno.,ed, as contended on behelf ':rf the Dep,rttment. then, in the ga6 of reopelr ng rhe r;scsstlent, reviet' *ould ta[

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

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

17:15:56 +0530 2 Bhiku Ram Jain Aged About 56 Years) R/o. Shop No. 5, Annapurna Complex, Near Telghani Over Bridge, Samta Colony, Raipur Tahsil District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1. Union Of India Secretary, Central Board Of Director Taxes North Block, New Delhi. 2. Chief Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Chhattisgarh

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. RASA AGROTECH PRIVATE LTD.

Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

17. Consequently, for computing the delay in filing the present appeals, the limitation should be reckoned from 26th June 2007, as rightly pointed out by the Respondent in its reply to the additional affidavit. The Revenue has a limitation period of 120 days i.e. 4 months to file an appeal under Section 260A of the Act. Therefore, the last date

M/s. Kausalya Shelters Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

17, 2012, to contend that a decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings. 100. He submitted that it is a settled position of law that to establish a claim for damages or compensation for losses suffered on account of a defaulting party, proper evidence of specific nature has to be supplied by the aggrieved party

THE COMMISSIONER OF I.T.-I, HYDERABAD. vs. M/S. AKASH CABLE TV NETWORK PVT.LTD., HYDERABAD.

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟, for short) impugning the common order dated 26.8.2011. The appeals relate to assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05. In the years in question, the appellant, a private limited company, had received share application money allegedly from Fair “N” Square Exports P. Ltd., Satwant Singh Sodhi Const