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

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

22(2) of the 1922 Act (corresponding to Section 148 of the Ac$, the previous under assessmenr is set aside and the ITO has the jurisdiction and duryto levy tax on the entire income fiat had escaped assessmenr during the previous par. I(lhat is set aside is, thus, only the previous underassessment and not the original assessment proceedings

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

e) Approval by Commissioner shows non-application of mind inasmuch as alleged documents seized by Central Excise Authorities related to M/s. Verma Roadways i.e. Assessee, while authorisation and other documents prepared by Income Tax authorities were in the name of “M/s. Verma Transport Company”. (f) Computation by ACIT/AA ought to be year wise but it has made computation

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

reassessing the materials before the Arbitral Tribunal and substituting its view/opinion. xiii) The finding recorded by the learned Court to the effect that the respondent contractor had failed to complete the jobs within the stipulated period in terms of the contract and hence on the prayer of the respondent contractor time was extended by the applicant for completion is perverse

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

E) Learned counsel would submit that during the period from 6-6-1995 to December, 1995 the Investigation Department, Delhi, continued to illegally exercise jurisdiction over the entire assessment proceedings to complete exclusion of the AO. He would submit that during the period as has been reflected in the order of the ITAT, the AO was not even involved

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

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

E) Learned counsel would submit that during the period from 6-6-1995 to December, 1995 the Investigation Department, Delhi, continued to illegally exercise jurisdiction over the entire assessment proceedings to complete exclusion of the AO. He would submit that during the period as has been reflected in the order of the ITAT, the AO was not even involved

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

E) Learned counsel would submit that during the period from 6-6-1995 to December, 1995 the Investigation Department, Delhi, continued to illegally exercise jurisdiction over the entire assessment proceedings to complete exclusion of the AO. He would submit that during the period as has been reflected in the order of the ITAT, the AO was not even involved

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

E) Learned counsel would submit that during the period from 6-6-1995 to December, 1995 the Investigation Department, Delhi, continued to illegally exercise jurisdiction over the entire assessment proceedings to complete exclusion of the AO. He would submit that during the period as has been reflected in the order of the ITAT, the AO was not even involved

PR COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

reassessment proceedings. The assessees resisted the move to assess them, contending that they were not subjected to income tax laws of India as they had no permanent establishment. The AO by order dated 31.12.2008 held that the appellant has a fixed place PE and DAPE in India. Further, the AO also deemed 10% of the value of supplies made

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

22 of 76 which may be looked into for determining reasonable compensation in lock-in period clauses have been discussed by this Court in Soril Infra Resources Limited vs. M/s Annapurna Infrastructure Private Limited and Others, FAO(OS) Comm. 20/2017, decided on August 04, 2017, such as (i) time which may be reasonably taken to find a new tenant while

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S Sri Krishna Drugs Ltd.,

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

reassessment beyond the expiry of limitation cannot be done unless income has escaped assessment by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year. Therefore, the reasoning assigned by the learned Commissioner (A) to give the nod to the alleged validity

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

E R % 24.08.2015 ITA Nos. 453 & 464 of 2012 Page 2 of 12 CM No. 13614/2010 (for condonation of delay in filing the appeal) & CM No. 13616/2012 (for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal) in ITA No. 453/2012 CM No. 14085/2012 (for condonation of delay in filing the appeal) in ITA No. 464/2012 1. These are three applications

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/s Devi Sea Foods Ltd.,

E-232A, Ram Nagar Extension, Sodala, Jaipur And Through Its Authorized Signatory Smt. Bhavna Kapoor Now Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Vikas Jain. ----Appellant/Petitoner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary Finance, Tax Division, Finance Department, Having Its Address At Secretariat, Jaipur In The State Of Rajasthan. 2. Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan Having Its Address At Kar Bhawan

The Pr. Commissioner of Income -Tax-6 vs. M/s. B.Surendra Chowdary

E-232A, Ram Nagar Extension, Sodala, Jaipur And Through Its Authorized Signatory Smt. Bhavna Kapoor Now Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Vikas Jain. ----Appellant/Petitoner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary Finance, Tax Division, Finance Department, Having Its Address At Secretariat, Jaipur In The State Of Rajasthan. 2. Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan Having Its Address At Kar Bhawan

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K.V.Ram Kumar

E-232A, Ram Nagar Extension, Sodala, Jaipur And Through Its Authorized Signatory Smt. Bhavna Kapoor Now Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Vikas Jain. ----Appellant/Petitoner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary Finance, Tax Division, Finance Department, Having Its Address At Secretariat, Jaipur In The State Of Rajasthan. 2. Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan Having Its Address At Kar Bhawan

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Hyderabad House Pvt Ltd.,

reassessment of damages. This is what was the theme of discourse in Santosh Devi (supra) and in a later decision in Puttamma (supra). In Puttamma (supra), the Supreme Court called upon the State to explain inaction on its part in the context of authorization given to the Central Government by Section 163-A (3) to make improvements on account

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K.V.Ramakrishna Rao

2 "' income of Rs.6,000/- per month. Further, furure prospects \ I PSK,J&NTR,] Macma 524 2017 were not considered and meager arnounts were awafded tou/ards conventional heads. Hence prayed for reassessment 3 6. Leamed counsel for the respondent No.2,/insuter would submit that considering the evidence of wife of the deceased/ P!7-1 and the admitted educational qualification