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

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

Sections 147/148 of the IT Act. Consequently, the answer to this question is given in favour of assessee to hold the decision of AO to reassess the assessee was not independent but was at the instance of superior officer. 42. Now next coming to the substantial questions of law which were admitted for hearing at the instance of Revenue

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Sections 147/148 of the IT Act. Consequently, the answer to this question is given in favour of assessee to hold the decision of AO to reassess the assessee was not independent but was at the instance of superior officer. 42. Now next coming to the substantial questions of law which were admitted for hearing at the instance of Revenue

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

Sections 147/148 of the IT Act. Consequently, the answer to this question is given in favour of assessee to hold the decision of AO to reassess the assessee was not independent but was at the instance of superior officer. 42. Now next coming to the substantial questions of law which were admitted for hearing at the instance of Revenue

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

Section 25, 26, 55 and 61 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax, 2003 (for short-`the Act of 2003’) as also the reassessment

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

Section 25, 26, 55 and 61 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax, 2003 (for short-`the Act of 2003’) as also the reassessment

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

Section 25, 26, 55 and 61 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax, 2003 (for short-`the Act of 2003’) as also the reassessment

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page 33 of 137 value, the same would not take away the right of the importer to question the final assessment itself. 9. We also bear in consideration the submission of the respondents who contend that the scheme of sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 17 clearly suggests that a reassessment

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page 33 of 137 value, the same would not take away the right of the importer to question the final assessment itself. 9. We also bear in consideration the submission of the respondents who contend that the scheme of sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 17 clearly suggests that a reassessment

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 chargeable to income- tax have escaped assessment, and secondly he must also have reason to believe that such escapement has occurred by reason of either (i) omission or failure

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

25 (2002) 143 ELT 299 CUSTA NO. 14 OF 2025 REPORTABLE Page 39 of 50 40. The authority placed reliance on the decision of the tribunal in Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Limited Versus Collector of Customs, Bombay 26 wherein it was held that correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes under Section 154 and Section

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

25. Search was conducted pursuant to warrant of authorization under Section 132(1) of Act, 1961 and Block Assessment has been made under Chapter XIV B; in particular, Section 158 BC of Act, 1961.It would be appropriate to have a glance over Section 132(1) and 158 BC of Act, 1961:- 132. Search and seizure.- (1) Where the Director General

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

25-B was introduced much later, after the AY in question here. There was nothing in the tenor of the amendment, to clarify that it had retrospective effect, or implicated past transactions. In the circumstances, the assessee could not take shelter under the fact that the arrears were disclosed in the later year. The revenue also relied on the judgment

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 :-

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 computation of income pursuant to the letter of the ACIT, Mumbai dated 16.08.2002 in which he disclosed a loss of Rs.5,67,61,657/- which included

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

25 (b) three years after evidence of facts, sufficient in the opinion of the prescribed authority to justify making of the re- assessment, comes to its knowledge, whichever is later. (2) If any tax is, not paid by a dealer who has failed to get registered under Section 79, an assessment or re-assessment may be made

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

reassessment is to be made. Where the reason for reopening is other than “collusion or any wilful mis- W.P. (C) 441/2013 & connected matters Page 24 of 66 statement or suppression of facts” reopening has to be done within one year from the „relevant date‟. Where it falls within the categories demarcated in terms of Section 28 (4) as amended

Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, vs. M/s. Madras Chakkar Beedi Factory Pvt.Ltd.,

The appeal is disposed of

reassessment made protectively under Section 147 for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98 by holding them as infructuous without going into the merits of the case when the issues with reference to unexplained cash credits of Rs.50 Lakhs and Rs.65,10,000/- have been found to be unexplained? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in 3 applying

Andhra PRadesh Pradesh Fibres Limited vs. Assistant commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

25 TAXMANN.COM 16 (GUJARAT), ‘NOKIA INDIA (P.) LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX’, (2018) 407 ITR 20 (DELHI), and ‘GE T & D INDIA LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX’, (2019) 105 TAXMANN.COM 286 (MADRAS). 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that from perusal of the order of the tribunal it is evident that

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

25 SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 027. …PETITIONERS (BY SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA) AND: M/s. LAVA INTERNATIONAL LTD. NO.64/2, 2ND CROSS PATTEGAR PALYA SRINIVASANAGAR NAGARBHAVI BENGALURU-560 072. …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. RAVI RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE) THIS STRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.65(1) OF THE KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX 2003 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2021 PASSED IN STA NO. 179/2020 ON THE FILE