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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

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

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-I vs. M/s. BDR Projects Pvt. Ltd.

20. From a conjoint reading of Sections 2 (34) and 28 of the Act, it is manifest that only such a Customs Officer who has been assigned the specific functions of assessment and reassessment

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 148 of the IT Act proceedings were initiated by the AO vide its order dated 30-3- 1995 and it was only on the basis of part of seized documents which was considered relevant by the DDIT (Inv.) and in the aforesaid letter dated 20-3-1995, AO was also directed to start reassessment

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

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

Section 148 of the IT Act proceedings were initiated by the AO vide its order dated 30-3- 1995 and it was only on the basis of part of seized documents which was considered relevant by the DDIT (Inv.) and in the aforesaid letter dated 20-3-1995, AO was also directed to start reassessment

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 148 of the IT Act proceedings were initiated by the AO vide its order dated 30-3- 1995 and it was only on the basis of part of seized documents which was considered relevant by the DDIT (Inv.) and in the aforesaid letter dated 20-3-1995, AO was also directed to start reassessment

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

Section 148 of the IT Act proceedings were initiated by the AO vide its order dated 30-3- 1995 and it was only on the basis of part of seized documents which was considered relevant by the DDIT (Inv.) and in the aforesaid letter dated 20-3-1995, AO was also directed to start reassessment

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

20 of 50 under Section 11B(1) of the Act and not on the expiry of the said period from the date on which the order of refund is made. It is submitted that in the instant case the application for refund under Section 27 of the Act was filed by the respondent in the prescribed statutory format only

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 :-

Section 43B of the Act 1961 and its admissibility was not disputed by the assessing officer. The proceedings before the assessing officer not being reassessment proceedings, the assessee lawfully claimed interest as a deductible expenditure which the assessing officer was bound to allow. The charge of income tax is on the income and not on gross receipts

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

reassessment under Section 14 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. In that case, it was held that once an assessment is reopened, the previous under-assessment is set aside and the whole assessment proceeding starts afresh. When valid proceedings are stafted afresh, income tax officer had not only the jurisdiction but it was his duryto levytax on the entire

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

20 II. The appellant company is permitted to make an appropriate application, if it so desires, before the Advance Ruling Authority, as provided under Section 4 of the Act r/w Rul3 27 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules. III. Liberty is also reserved to the appellant company to produce such material, which are available with it including the material produced

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

The appeal is allowed

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

Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The Trial Court, vide order dated 28.03.2014, directed the respondent-husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the appellant-wife and Rs. 6,000/- per month to the minor son, along with Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation costs. The Trial Court, vide order dated 10.01.2016, dismissed the matrimonial

The Director of Income Tax, (Exemptions) vs. Royal Education Society

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

reassessment' 18 cannot be reduced beyond the income originally assessed. 10. In Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd supra, it was held that in a proceeding fro re-assessment, the Assessing Officer cannot adjudicate the issues, which are the issues forming part of the original assessment, whether the issues are adjudicated or not, whereas, MEWALAL DWARKA PRASAD supra, it was held

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

reassessment” in Section 132B shall be construed as references to “block assessment” . (emphasis applied) 26. Photocopy of warrant of authorisation issued in Form 45 under Section 112(I) of Income Tax Rules, pursuant whereto search was conducted at Assessee's premises on 28.11.1996 was produced before Tribunal, which are quoted in para 11.2 of Tribunal's order and relevant extract

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

20% of such profit. Further, under Section 18 of the BR Act, every banking company, not being a scheduled bank, shall maintain cash reserve with itself or by way of balance in a current account with the RBI. Such cash reserve shall be equivalent to at least 3% of total of its demand and time liabilities as on the last

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

20% of such profit. Further, under Section 18 of the BR Act, every banking company, not being a scheduled bank, shall maintain cash reserve with itself or by way of balance in a current account with the RBI. Such cash reserve shall be equivalent to at least 3% of total of its demand and time liabilities as on the last

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

20% of such profit. Further, under Section 18 of the BR Act, every banking company, not being a scheduled bank, shall maintain cash reserve with itself or by way of balance in a current account with the RBI. Such cash reserve shall be equivalent to at least 3% of total of its demand and time liabilities as on the last

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

20% of such profit. Further, under Section 18 of the BR Act, every banking company, not being a scheduled bank, shall maintain cash reserve with itself or by way of balance in a current account with the RBI. Such cash reserve shall be equivalent to at least 3% of total of its demand and time liabilities as on the last