Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. The Agrasen Coop. Urban Bank Ltd.,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

reassessment proceedings, the order of the assessing officer was reversed, and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) referred the matter to the High Court under Section 66(1) of the 1922 Act. The Revenue argued that moneys laid out in deposit in other banks stand apart and, therefore, do not get the benefit of exemption. Repelling the submission, the unanimous

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Andhra Bank Employees Co.Operative Bank Limited

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

reassessment proceedings, the order of the assessing officer was reversed, and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) referred the matter to the High Court under Section 66(1) of the 1922 Act. The Revenue argued that moneys laid out in deposit in other banks stand apart and, therefore, do not get the benefit of exemption. Repelling the submission, the unanimous

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. The A.P.Vardhaman(Mahila)Cooperative Urban

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

reassessment proceedings, the order of the assessing officer was reversed, and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) referred the matter to the High Court under Section 66(1) of the 1922 Act. The Revenue argued that moneys laid out in deposit in other banks stand apart and, therefore, do not get the benefit of exemption. Repelling the submission, the unanimous

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S The A.P.Mahesh Coop. Urban Bank Ltd,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

reassessment proceedings, the order of the assessing officer was reversed, and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) referred the matter to the High Court under Section 66(1) of the 1922 Act. The Revenue argued that moneys laid out in deposit in other banks stand apart and, therefore, do not get the benefit of exemption. Repelling the submission, the unanimous

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

2) of Section 27, the date gets postposed to the date of reassessment order which was passed on 05.09.2023. 50. At this juncture, it is beneficial to take note of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ITC Limited wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is apparent from the provisions of refund that

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

17. Section 40 of the Act, which deals with period of limitation for assessment, prior to its amendment reads as under: "40. Period of limitation for assessment.- (1) An assessment under Section 38 or re- assessment under Section 39 of an amount of tax due for any prescribed tax period shall not be made after the following time limits

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

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

2) thereof. (iii) The dispute, when referred to arbitrator for adjudication, it is not open to the Court to set aside the findings of the arbitrator in awarding a claim on the ground that the award is beyond the scope of reference and/or that the Arbitrator has acted beyond the arbitral jurisdiction and this aspect of Page

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Moschip Semiconductor Technology Ltd.,

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

reassessment proceedings, simply to verify the contents of the return, unlike before it was vested in him in making regular assessment. It was found that the time-limit available for issuance of notice and making assessment under Section 143(3) had expired, but then, on that count, he cannot assume the jurisdiction by venturing to make assessment under Section

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

2) and (3) of section 143 , 144 shall, so far as may be, apply; (c) the Assessing Officer, on determination of the undisclosed income of the block period in accordance with this Chapter, shall pass an order of assessment and determine the tax payable by him on the basis of such assessment; (d) the assets seized under section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

17 of the decision in the case of WALFORT supra, it is pointed out that expenditure is a pay out and pay back is not 10 expenditure in the scheme of Section 14A of the Act. It is further submitted that condition precedent for invoking Section 14A of the Act is pay out. In the instant case, since the assessee

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 :-

2). The words "such income" in Section 147 clearly referred to the income which is chargeable to tax but has "escaped assessment" and the Income Tax Officers' jurisdiction under the Section is confined only to such income which has escaped assessment. It does not extend to reconsidering generally the concluded earlier assessment. Claims which have been disallowed in the original

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 147/148 of the Act ? 5. (i) Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue would submit that though the finding has been recorded by the ITAT that the assessment was carried out at the direction/dictates

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

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

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 147/148 of the Act ? 5. (i) Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue would submit that though the finding has been recorded by the ITAT that the assessment was carried out at the direction/dictates

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 147/148 of the Act ? 5. (i) Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue would submit that though the finding has been recorded by the ITAT that the assessment was carried out at the direction/dictates

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

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 147/148 of the Act ? 5. (i) Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue would submit that though the finding has been recorded by the ITAT that the assessment was carried out at the direction/dictates

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

2) TMI 1247 9 (2017) 77 Taxman.com 219 (All) STRP NO. 08 OF 2022 AND CONNECTED MATTERS 36 similar to the facts in Nokia India Case. In the Samsung India Case, the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad has interpreted the provisions contained in Article 366(29A) of the Constitution of India which mainly relates to the transfer of goods