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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

21. The ITAT while formulating whether the AO acted independently or at the behest of his superiors or at the dictation/ direction is essentially a question of fact. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sirpur Paper Mill Ltd. (surpa) while dealing with Section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act (Corresponding to Section 264 of the Act) set aside

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

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

21. The ITAT while formulating whether the AO acted independently or at the behest of his superiors or at the dictation/ direction is essentially a question of fact. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sirpur Paper Mill Ltd. (surpa) while dealing with Section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act (Corresponding to Section 264 of the Act) set aside

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

21. The ITAT while formulating whether the AO acted independently or at the behest of his superiors or at the dictation/ direction is essentially a question of fact. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sirpur Paper Mill Ltd. (surpa) while dealing with Section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act (Corresponding to Section 264 of the Act) set aside

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

21. The ITAT while formulating whether the AO acted independently or at the behest of his superiors or at the dictation/ direction is essentially a question of fact. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sirpur Paper Mill Ltd. (surpa) while dealing with Section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act (Corresponding to Section 264 of the Act) set aside

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

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

21. Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act) deals with claim for refund of duty. Sub Section (1) states that any person claiming refund of any duty or interest (a) paid by him; or (b) borne by him; may make an application in such form and manner as may be prescribed for such refund to the Assistant Commissioner

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Kaveri Bar AND Restaurant,

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

Section 147 of the Act as appears at page 140 of the writ petition are as follows : “Reasons for the belief that Income has escaped assessment 2 “For the Financial year 2009-10 relevant to the assessment year 2010-11, the assessee had debited a sum of Rs. 21,09,18,000/- to the P & L Account under the head

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

reassessment proceedings as his appeal or r,:vision, in disguise, and seek relief in respect of items eadie,' re.iected or claim relief in respect of items not claimed in tlrc orfuinal assessment proceedings, unless relatable to 'escaped ncome', and reagiute the concluded mattcn. E ven in cases wh,:re the claims of the assessee during the cour:e of reassessfircrt

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 :-

21,003/-. The depreciation was claimed on the block assets which are mentioned in Schedule-5 (fixed assets) to the balance-sheet. The assessing officer has not passed any assessment order on the basis of returns filed by the assessee. Instead, subsequently, he issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and passed an assessment order dated

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

21 under KST Act. The relevant extract of the order reads as under: "xxxx From the application it is seen that a ruling was sought on the applicability of tax or otherwise on a transaction under KST Act 1957, where the goods are purchased in the course of import into India. As per Sec.5

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s. BDR Projects Pvt. Ltd.

reassessment of duty in the jurisdictional area where the import concerned has been affected, by either the Board or the Commissioner of Customs, in terms of Section 2 (34) of the Act is competent to issue notice under Section 28 of the Act. Any other reading of Section 28 would render the provisions of Section

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-VI, vs. M/s. Madras Chakkar Beedi Factory Pvt.Ltd.,

The appeal is disposed of

21-12-2012. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 1996-97. The appeal was admitted

Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Krosur

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

21,797/- was demanded towards short deduction and a demand for a sum of Rs.2,92,92,842/- was made on account of interest for all the years. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal. 6. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 13.11.2007 dismissed the appeal. The assessee thereupon approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1 vs. M/s. New River Software System Pvt Ltd.,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

21-26 + ITA Nos.596, 597, 598, 599, 600 & 601/2015 PR. CIT ....Appellant Through: Mr. Dileep Shivpuri and Mr. Vikrant A. Maheshwari, Advocates. Versus CLARIDGES HOTELS (P) LTD. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Aryama Sundaram, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Kapur and Mr. Ajay Wadhwa, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI NAJMI WAZIRI

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Adaptec [India] Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

21-26 + ITA Nos.596, 597, 598, 599, 600 & 601/2015 PR. CIT ....Appellant Through: Mr. Dileep Shivpuri and Mr. Vikrant A. Maheshwari, Advocates. Versus CLARIDGES HOTELS (P) LTD. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Aryama Sundaram, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Kapur and Mr. Ajay Wadhwa, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI NAJMI WAZIRI