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

24 of the BR Act as modified by Section 56 of the said Act. The SLR, cash reserve or reserve fund required to be maintained by a scheduled bank or a cooperative bank under the provisions of the RBI Act or the BR Act as referred to herein above, are all the activities which are part of business of banking

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

24 of the BR Act as modified by Section 56 of the said Act. The SLR, cash reserve or reserve fund required to be maintained by a scheduled bank or a cooperative bank under the provisions of the RBI Act or the BR Act as referred to herein above, are all the activities which are part of business of banking

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

24 of the BR Act as modified by Section 56 of the said Act. The SLR, cash reserve or reserve fund required to be maintained by a scheduled bank or a cooperative bank under the provisions of the RBI Act or the BR Act as referred to herein above, are all the activities which are part of business of banking

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 2023 filed by the department at the time of hearing the revenue pleaded that the appeal has become infructuous as the original authority has passed the order dated 05.01.2023 but the department contested the legal issue of applicability of Section 154 of the Act. The Division Bench vide order dated 28.06.2023 held that the authority having accepted

The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. Smt P Sujana

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

24,944/-, the loss claimed for the year 2004- 05 of Rs.5,23,18,280/- was not allowable as the return filed for the said year was belated. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (Appeals) – V, Bangalore, inter alia - 5 - contending that there was a delay of one day in filing

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

24 to the petitioner and after considering the provisions of intercompany purchase agreement, passed an order on 19.07.2011, by which view taken by the ACAR was affirmed. The Assessing Authority infact has undertaken a fresh analysis and arrived at different conclusions in respect of the very transactions which were considered by ACAR. Therefore, in the fact situation of the case

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

24. The 2007 Rules have been framed in order to give effect to the statutory mandate of Section 14. The words ‗computed value‘, ‗deductive value‘, ‗similar goods‘ and ‗transaction value‘ are defined by Rule 2 as under: ―2. Definitions.— (1) In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires,— (a) ―computed value‖ means the value of imported goods determined in accordance

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

24. The 2007 Rules have been framed in order to give effect to the statutory mandate of Section 14. The words ‗computed value‘, ‗deductive value‘, ‗similar goods‘ and ‗transaction value‘ are defined by Rule 2 as under: ―2. Definitions.— (1) In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires,— (a) ―computed value‖ means the value of imported goods determined in accordance

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

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

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) Whether on a true and proper interpretation of the provisions of section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 depreciation allowance in respect of hotel assets used for the purpose of the business can be reduced in any manner because of temporary closure of the hotel for part of the year and the purported findings of the Tribunal restricting

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

24 KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 034. REPRESENTED BY MR. ANIL GUPTA -MANAGER ACCOUNTS …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. P.B.HARISH, ADVOCATE) THIS STRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 65(1) OF KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003 AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 14.01.2022 PASSED IN STA NOS.262/2017, 264/2017 AND 266/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE APPEALS AND SETTING

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

The appeal is allowed

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

2 SCC 114 has observed that while granting permanent alimony, no arithmetic formula can be adopted as there cannot be mathematical exactitude. It shall depend upon the status of the parties, their respective social needs, the financial capacity of the husband and other obligations. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under: 84. We have reproduced

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 147 of the IT Act were completed and following income was assessed as under : 6 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters Assessment year Income Assessed (₹) 1988-89 44,39,320=00 1989-90 2,58,94,870=00 1990-91 24

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

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

Section 147 of the IT Act were completed and following income was assessed as under : 6 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters Assessment year Income Assessed (₹) 1988-89 44,39,320=00 1989-90 2,58,94,870=00 1990-91 24

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 147 of the IT Act were completed and following income was assessed as under : 6 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters Assessment year Income Assessed (₹) 1988-89 44,39,320=00 1989-90 2,58,94,870=00 1990-91 24

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

Section 147 of the IT Act were completed and following income was assessed as under : 6 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters Assessment year Income Assessed (₹) 1988-89 44,39,320=00 1989-90 2,58,94,870=00 1990-91 24

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

reassessed. To confer jurisdiction under Section 147(a) two conditions were required to be satisfied firstly the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income profits or gains 22 chargeable to income- tax have escaped assessment, and secondly he must also have reason to believe that such escapement has occurred by reason of either (i) omission or failure