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

24. Applying the above principle that the assessing officer should record in the assessment order his satisfaction that the assessee had either concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income in his return before imposing penalty, we noticed that in the assessment orders passed by the assessing officer for the assessment year 1982-83 (which is the subject matter

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-4 vs. Sri. Krishna Chigullapally

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

24 KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 034. REPRESENTED BY MR. ANIL GUPTA -MANAGER ACCOUNTS …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. P.B.HARISH, ADVOCATE) THIS STRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 65(1) OF KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX ACT, 2003 AGAINST THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 14.01.2022 PASSED IN STA NOS.262/2017, 264/2017 AND 266/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE APPEALS AND SETTING

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

1 -- For the purposes of this section, "relevant date" means,- (a) in a case where duty is not levied, or interest is not charged, the date on which the proper officer makes an order for the clearance of goods; (b) in a case where duty is provisionally assessed under section 18, the date of adjustment of duty after the final

The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. Smt P Sujana

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

1. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. 2. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF - 2 - THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 27.02.2015 BEARING ITA NO.351/BANG/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T This appeal

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

1) (as it stood then) are attracted. Therefore, the theory as propounded by the respondent that the assessment made at the first instance was a provisional assessment is outrightly rejected. 32. We are also prompted to examine as to what would fall within the scope of Section 154 of the Act which deals with correction/clerical errors etc. Section 154 states

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

The appeal is allowed

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

24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking interim maintenance for herself and the minor son. The Trial Court, by order dated 14.01.2010, awarded interim maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the appellant-wife and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses. The appellant-wife then instituted Misc. Case No. 116 of 2010 under Section 125 of the Criminal

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

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 :-

1)(i)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act, 1961’). Thus, in the revised return the assessee disclosed income of Rs.11,25,000/- under the head ‘income from house property’ and loss of Rs.2,19,28,436/- under the head “profit or gain from business or profession”. 4. On 07.11.2002, the assessee filed a revised

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

24. The 2007 Rules have been framed in order to give effect to the statutory mandate of Section 14. The words ‗computed value‘, ‗deductive value‘, ‗similar goods‘ and ‗transaction value‘ are defined by Rule 2 as under: ―2. Definitions.— (1) In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires,— (a) ―computed value‖ means the value of imported goods determined in accordance

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s. Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

24. The 2007 Rules have been framed in order to give effect to the statutory mandate of Section 14. The words ‗computed value‘, ‗deductive value‘, ‗similar goods‘ and ‗transaction value‘ are defined by Rule 2 as under: ―2. Definitions.— (1) In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires,— (a) ―computed value‖ means the value of imported goods determined in accordance

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

24 to the petitioner and after considering the provisions of intercompany purchase agreement, passed an order on 19.07.2011, by which view taken by the ACAR was affirmed. The Assessing Authority infact has undertaken a fresh analysis and arrived at different conclusions in respect of the very transactions which were considered by ACAR. Therefore, in the fact situation of the case

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

1)(n) of the BR Act, the doing of all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the promotion or advancement of the business of the company. Thus reading of Sections 5(b), (c) and Section 6 of the BR Act along with Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act, it becomes clear that the income received

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

1)(n) of the BR Act, the doing of all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the promotion or advancement of the business of the company. Thus reading of Sections 5(b), (c) and Section 6 of the BR Act along with Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act, it becomes clear that the income received

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

1)(n) of the BR Act, the doing of all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the promotion or advancement of the business of the company. Thus reading of Sections 5(b), (c) and Section 6 of the BR Act along with Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act, it becomes clear that the income received

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

1)(n) of the BR Act, the doing of all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the promotion or advancement of the business of the company. Thus reading of Sections 5(b), (c) and Section 6 of the BR Act along with Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act, it becomes clear that the income received

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

reassessment proceedings. The relevant seized documents and set of papers were sent to the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Jabalpur on 1-3-1995. d) The documents so received by the AO at Bhilai included one spiral bound diary, which was marked as MR-71/91. In the said diary certain receipts and disbursement of money was found

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

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

reassessment proceedings. The relevant seized documents and set of papers were sent to the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Jabalpur on 1-3-1995. d) The documents so received by the AO at Bhilai included one spiral bound diary, which was marked as MR-71/91. In the said diary certain receipts and disbursement of money was found

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

reassessment proceedings. The relevant seized documents and set of papers were sent to the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Jabalpur on 1-3-1995. d) The documents so received by the AO at Bhilai included one spiral bound diary, which was marked as MR-71/91. In the said diary certain receipts and disbursement of money was found

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

reassessment proceedings. The relevant seized documents and set of papers were sent to the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Jabalpur on 1-3-1995. d) The documents so received by the AO at Bhilai included one spiral bound diary, which was marked as MR-71/91. In the said diary certain receipts and disbursement of money was found