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

22 (2011) 2 SCC 74 CUSTA NO. 14 OF 2025 REPORTABLE Page 27 of 50 combined reading of Section 27(1)and (2) and the explanation in Section 27A manifest that any person claiming refund of the duty or interest paid by him or payment by him is required to make an application in such form and manner

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

reassess such income, profits or gains. It is, therefore, manifest that once assessment is reopened by issuing a notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 22

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

22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under sub-section (1) of section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause to be produced, any books of account or other documents has omitted or failed to produce, or cause to be produced, such books of account or other documents as required by such summons or notice

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

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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

reassessment proceeded, did not share it with the AO at Bhilai within a period of fifteen days. The Supreme Court in the matter of K.V. Krishnaswamy Naidu (supra) held thus : Having heard the counsel for the parties and in view of the provisions of sub-section (9-A) of Section 132 of the Income

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

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

reassessment proceeded, did not share it with the AO at Bhilai within a period of fifteen days. The Supreme Court in the matter of K.V. Krishnaswamy Naidu (supra) held thus : Having heard the counsel for the parties and in view of the provisions of sub-section (9-A) of Section 132 of the Income

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

reassessment proceeded, did not share it with the AO at Bhilai within a period of fifteen days. The Supreme Court in the matter of K.V. Krishnaswamy Naidu (supra) held thus : Having heard the counsel for the parties and in view of the provisions of sub-section (9-A) of Section 132 of the Income

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

reassessment proceeded, did not share it with the AO at Bhilai within a period of fifteen days. The Supreme Court in the matter of K.V. Krishnaswamy Naidu (supra) held thus : Having heard the counsel for the parties and in view of the provisions of sub-section (9-A) of Section 132 of the Income

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

reassessment beyond the expiry of limitation cannot be done unless income has escaped assessment by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year. Therefore, the reasoning assigned by the learned Commissioner (A) to give the nod to the alleged validity

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 :-

reassessment proceeding whereas proceeding before the assessing officer was the assessment proceeding and the order passed by him was assessment order. Therefore, the ratio 19 of decision in the case of Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. (supra) was not applicable on facts of the present case. The substantial question of law (i) deserves to be answered in favour

Commissioner of Income Tax-III., vs. Smt. Chirala Nivedita Reddy

reassessment proceedings. 5. Furthermore the CIT(Appeals) and the ITAT considered elaborately on the merits of the addition and held that the effort of the assessing officer ITA 575/2012 Page 4 to bring such amounts to tax was not justified. The ITAT pertinently noticed as under : “The formation of such belief exhibiting the escapement of income or the reasons should

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

22 of 66 (i) that the duty with interest and penalty has been paid in full, then, the proceedings in respect of such person or other persons to whom the notice is served under sub-section (1) or sub- section (4), shall, without prejudice to the provisions of sections 135, 135A and 140 be deemed to be conclusive

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

reassessment order was passed pursuant to the search proceedings under Section 132, whereby inter alia additions of various amounts were made under Section 68 of the Act for Assessment Years (AYs) 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. These amounts were primarily towards share application money received from various companies. The AO made additions/disallowance

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

The appeals are dismissed

reassessment order was passed pursuant to the search proceedings under Section 132, whereby inter alia additions of various amounts were made under Section 68 of the Act for Assessment Years (AYs) 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. These amounts were primarily towards share application money received from various companies. The AO made additions/disallowance

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

22 24. Learned senior advocate appearing for Samsung has submitted that, discriminatory aspect of any Entry Tax Act is to be considered on an individual assessee bringing on record adequate material in that regard. In support of such contention, he has relied upon 2021 Volume 11 Supreme Court Cases 776 (Bharti Airtel Limited vs. Assessing Authority, Orissa Entry

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/s Devi Sea Foods Ltd.,

reassessment orders passed, on the basis of such notice in some of the cases, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.-(2014) 16 SCC 410. Some of the petitioners filed reply to the show cause notice and agitated those very arguments, which have been raised before this Court