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

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

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

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

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

2 Act 3 BoE 4 NIDB Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page 15 of 137 relinquishing its right to receive a speaking order as contemplated under Section 17(5) of the Act. 4. Post the BoE being reassessed

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

2 Act 3 BoE 4 NIDB Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page 15 of 137 relinquishing its right to receive a speaking order as contemplated under Section 17(5) of the Act. 4. Post the BoE being reassessed

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

15. Thus, it is evident that the ACAR vide order dated 31.03.2006, has opined on the issue of applicability of the tax or otherwise on a transaction under KST Act and has not dealt with the issue under Section 5(2) of the Act. It is pertinent to note that though the aforesaid order could either have been revised

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax - III, vs. M/s. Suven Pharmaceuticals Limited,

Appeals are dismissed

reassessment  or recomputation exceeds the tax on the total  income determined [under sub­section (1) of  section 143 or] on the basis of the regular  assessment aforesaid. (4) Where,   as   a   result   of   an   order   under  section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or  section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or  section 263 or section

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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

15 days and, therefore, he could not moot a proposal under sub-section (8) for further retention of the documents beyond 180 days. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. 17. The fact as has been shown in the order the part of the documents were sent to the AO on 20-3-1995 though it was received

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

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

15 days and, therefore, he could not moot a proposal under sub-section (8) for further retention of the documents beyond 180 days. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. 17. The fact as has been shown in the order the part of the documents were sent to the AO on 20-3-1995 though it was received

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

15 days and, therefore, he could not moot a proposal under sub-section (8) for further retention of the documents beyond 180 days. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. 17. The fact as has been shown in the order the part of the documents were sent to the AO on 20-3-1995 though it was received

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

15 days and, therefore, he could not moot a proposal under sub-section (8) for further retention of the documents beyond 180 days. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. 17. The fact as has been shown in the order the part of the documents were sent to the AO on 20-3-1995 though it was received

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

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

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 :-

reassessment is not made for the benefit of assessee. In fact in this case, time for issuing notice under section 143(2) was available with the Assessing Officer after filing the revised return but instead of that he has issued notice under section 148. Therefore, I find force behind the arguments of the appellant that the appellant should

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

15,00,92,060/- after claiming deduction of ` 99,67,71,161/- under Section 10A of the Act. Assessment order came to be framed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 27.03.2006. The Assessing Officer reduced the claim of deduction from ` 99,67,71,161/- to ` 89,08,86,778/-. Notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued