SYED ABBAS MIAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-I,KURNOOL

21, 2017 Supreme Court had dismissed TP (C) 291 of 2017 and directed the High Court to proceed with the matter in accordance with the law and in light of the judgement passed in Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra). 50. State of West Bengal had promulgated the West Bengal Finance Act, 2017 on March 6, 2017. Relevant provisions of the West

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

reassessment as the case may be." 18. The dispute in this petition pertains to tax periods April 2006 to March 2008 and as on the date of re- assessment, the time limit for re-assessment for the disputed period was as under: Tax period Period of limitation Due date for completion of re-assessment April 2006 to March 5 years

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

5) of Section 132 could not retain the seized documents etc. beyond 15 days and, therefore, he could not moot a proposal under sub-section (8) for further retention of the documents beyond 180 days. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. 17. The fact as has been shown in the order the part of the documents were sent

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

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

5) of Section 132 could not retain the seized documents etc. beyond 15 days and, therefore, he could not moot a proposal under sub-section (8) for further retention of the documents beyond 180 days. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. 17. The fact as has been shown in the order the part of the documents were sent

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5) of Section 132 could not retain the seized documents etc. beyond 15 days and, therefore, he could not moot a proposal under sub-section (8) for further retention of the documents beyond 180 days. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. 17. The fact as has been shown in the order the part of the documents were sent

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

5) of Section 132 could not retain the seized documents etc. beyond 15 days and, therefore, he could not moot a proposal under sub-section (8) for further retention of the documents beyond 180 days. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. 17. The fact as has been shown in the order the part of the documents were sent

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

5,07,274 under Section 28 (1) of the Act. The Collector W.P. (C) 441/2013 & connected matters Page 16 of 66 also ordered confiscation of two consignments of dyes, sulphur blue and sulphur blue green. Aggrieved by the above order, the Respondents went in appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal („CEGAT‟). A preliminary objection was raised

K. Ranjeet Mohan, vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax,

21 of the act. Reliance is also placed on M/s A.L.A. Firm vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 1991 U.P.T.C. 918 (Paragraph 19) in which it was stated as under: " To give a couple of illustrations suppose in I.T.O. in the original assessment, which is a valuminous one involving several contentions, accepts a plea of the assessee in regard

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

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

5. It is the contention of Sri K.V.Aravind, learned Advocate for the revenue that Tribunal erred in holding that assessing Officer sought to initiate the re-assessment proceedings by mere change of opinion, without considering the fact that the 7 expenditure related to onsite development of computer software and same had not been examined in the original assessment

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

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

5) of the Act expires, the only remedy which is available to the assessee is to file a return and to seek condonation of delay in filing the return under Section 119 of the Act. It is further submitted that Section 148 of the Act provides a remedy to the revenue and is not a remedy to the assessee

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

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

5 ORDER SHEET WPO 575 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE THE TINPLATE COMPANY OF INDIA LTD Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), KOLKATA & ORS. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN Date : 15th June, 2022 Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Adv. …for the petitioner

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

5 7. Counsel for the assessee, Mr. Sethi, argued that the appeal is bereft of merit, and the ITAT's order does not call for interference. It was argued that having regard to the structure and tenor of the statute, there was no occasion for declaring something that was likely to arise in the future, as “payable”. At the time

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

21% per annum 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the application till payment Then being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the arbitral award, so passed by the learned sole Arbitrator, the respondent herein had filed an application before the learned District Judge, Kamrup (M) Guwahati, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation

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