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

17 SCC 620 19) (2003) 63 ITR 63 (P&H) 20) (2010) 3 SCC 223 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL Nos.86

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

17 SCC 620 19) (2003) 63 ITR 63 (P&H) 20) (2010) 3 SCC 223 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL Nos.86

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

17 SCC 620 19) (2003) 63 ITR 63 (P&H) 20) (2010) 3 SCC 223 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL Nos.86

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

17 SCC 620 19) (2003) 63 ITR 63 (P&H) 20) (2010) 3 SCC 223 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL Nos.86

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

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

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

iii) Replika Press Private Limited & Another vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle (W.P.(C) 7452/2010 dated 5th August, 2013) 11 (iv) (2014) 363 ITR 603 (Bom) NDT Systems and another vs. Income-Tax Officer and others (v) (2014) 366 ITR 134 (Guj) Deepakbhai Ramjibhai Patel vs. Income- Tax Officer 8. Assessee is in the business of software development

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

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

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

iii) depreciation on securities (iv) floating rate notes of London branch (v) DICGC loans (vi) suits filed accounts (vii) miscellaneous provision cannot be added back in accordance with Explanation of Section 115JA of the Act in the light of the judgment of the Apex court in H.C.L. Comnet when there is diminution in the value of assets as contended

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 :-

III, KOLKATA BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI AND 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

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

iii. \fltr':ther the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in disallowing the personnel, adminis -rative and fhancial expenditure relating to the sub-contracts allowed in the or(inal assessment ? iv. \I(h,:ther the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse insofar as it omined to consider the relevant material ,.rt , computation o[ profits

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s.Viskha Container Terminal Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

reassess the income, all the consequent proceedings were null and void and it was not a case of irregularity. Therefore, Section 292B of the Act had no application. 16. When we apply the ratio of aforesaid cases to the facts of this case, the irresistible conclusion would be provisions of Section 292B of the Act are not applicable in such