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

2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), if any tax is, not paid by a 28 dealer who has failed to get registered though liable to do so or fraudulently evaded attracting punishment under Section 79, an assessment or reassessment may be made within eight years from the end of the prescribed tax period. Provided that an assessment

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

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

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

31 IN STRP NO. 53 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED THROUGH THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, (APPEALS-1) 2ND FLOOR, TTMC 'B' BLOCK BMTC BUILDING K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-27. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT-1) VANIJYA THERIGE SANKEERNA 80 FEET ROAD SIDDARAMESHWARA BADAVANE TUMAKURU-572 101. …PETITIONERS (BY SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI

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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

2,58,94,870=00 1990-91 24,35,06,300=00 1991-92 23,69,02,210=00 1992-93 5,94,40,840=00 g) Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) on various grounds including the validity of reassessment proceedings. The CIT(A) after hearing the parties vide

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

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

2,58,94,870=00 1990-91 24,35,06,300=00 1991-92 23,69,02,210=00 1992-93 5,94,40,840=00 g) Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) on various grounds including the validity of reassessment proceedings. The CIT(A) after hearing the parties vide

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2,58,94,870=00 1990-91 24,35,06,300=00 1991-92 23,69,02,210=00 1992-93 5,94,40,840=00 g) Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) on various grounds including the validity of reassessment proceedings. The CIT(A) after hearing the parties vide

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

2,58,94,870=00 1990-91 24,35,06,300=00 1991-92 23,69,02,210=00 1992-93 5,94,40,840=00 g) Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) on various grounds including the validity of reassessment proceedings. The CIT(A) after hearing the parties vide

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

31-03-1997 in PAN/GIR No. P-2. Between: Progreesive Constructions Limited, Represented Managing Director 7th Floor, "Raghava" North Block, Abids, HYDERABAD. by K. Bhaskara Rao, R.R. Towers, C.A. Lane, ...APPELLANT Jt. Commissioner of income tax, Jt. Commissioner of lncome Tax Special Range - 3, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT AND Counsel for the Appellant : SRI CHALLA GUNARANJAN Counsel for the Respondents

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

The appeal is allowed

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

31 circumstances of the case, it may seem to the court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable property of the respondent (2) If the court is satisfied that there is, a change in the circumstances of either party at any time after it has made an order under

Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, vs. M/s. Madras Chakkar Beedi Factory Pvt.Ltd.,

The appeal is disposed of

reassessment made protectively under Section 147 for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98 by holding them as infructuous without going into the merits of the case when the issues with reference to unexplained cash credits of Rs.50 Lakhs and Rs.65,10,000/- have been found to be unexplained? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in 3 applying

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 34 of the Act of 1996, shall not/ought not disturb the interpretation given by the learned Arbitrator, merely because another interpretation of the same Clause is also possible. Similarly, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Arbitrator in paragraph 51 of the Impugned Award is a plausible interpretation of the Clause 8(A)(c) of the sub-lease deed

CHENNAKESAVA PHARMACEUTICALS VIJAYAWADA vs. THE COMI.OF INCOMETAX VIJ.

In the result, all the appeals are allowed setting aside the common

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material or evidence before the Tribunal to hold that the assessee had deliberately concealed particulars of his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income as required by Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Years 1959-60 to 1962-63?” These

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s. Meghadoot Drillers,

reassessment or recomputation under Section 147, the Income Tax Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 139; and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if the notice were a notice issued