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

The Commissioner of Income Tax - III, vs. M/s. Suven Pharmaceuticals Limited,

Appeals are dismissed

reassessment  or recomputation exceeds the tax on the total  income determined [under sub­section (1) of  section 143 or] on the basis of the regular  assessment aforesaid. (4) Where,   as   a   result   of   an   order   under  section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or  section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or  section 263 or section

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

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 its order upheld the order passed by the AO under Section

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

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

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 its order upheld the order passed by the AO under Section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 its order upheld the order passed by the AO under Section

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

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 its order upheld the order passed by the AO under Section

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section is conf ined only to such income which has escaped assessnlent. It does not etend to reconsidering genenlly the concluded earlier assessment. Claims which have been disallow,ed in the original assessment proceeding cannot be pennitted to be re-agitated on the assessment being reopened for bringing to tax certain income u4rich had cscaped assessment because the controversy

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

The Pr. Commissioner of Income -Tax-6 vs. M/s. B.Surendra Chowdary

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K.V.Ram Kumar

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

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

23 of 66 (10) Where an order determining the duty is passed by the proper officer under this section, the person liable to pay the said duty shall pay the amount so determined along with the interest due on such amount whether or not the amount of interest is specified separately. Explanation 1 -- For the purposes of this section, "relevant

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

The appeal is allowed

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

23 of the HAMA provides the following factors which may be taken into consideration : (i) position and status of the parties, (ii)reasonable wants of the claimant, (iii) if the petitioner/claimant is living separately, the justification for the same, (iv) value of the claimant's property and any income derived from such property, (v) income from claimant's own earning

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

reassessing the shipping bills a communication was issued by the department dated 17.08.2023 calling upon the respondent to submit all connected documents and the respondent in response submitted the required documents and immediately thereafter the adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund on 05.09.2023 and the same was paid to the respondent on 06.09.2023 and therefore, the question of payment of interests

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

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

23 and binds the parties. The aforesaid order is neither without jurisdiction nor non est and the respondent cannot be permitted to raise a contention about its validity. Accordingly, the first question of law is answered in the negative. QUESTION OF LAW NO.2: 16. The Assessing Authority has recorded a finding that it has examined voluminous transactions to unearth

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt.Anitha Sanghi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

23,249/-. The assessee declared Rs.2,06,92,53,033/- as book profit under Section 115JA of the Act. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act resulting in refund of Rs.10,62,37,618/-. Thereafter a notice was issued under Section 143(2) of the Act. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 31.12.2002 inter alia

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

23. This Court while deciding V.V.Projects and Investments Pvt. Ltd’s case (3 supra) had followed the decisions reported in Munish Iron ore (4 supra), Vikas Promoters (5 supra), Ram Commercial Enterprises (6 supra) apart from Dilip N.Shroff (10 supra) which have considered Manasvi’s case (14 supra). Moreover the decision in Ram Commercial Enterprises (6 supra) was approved