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

260A of the Act is barred. To that extent, the Senior Counsel is correct and is well supported by the ratio in S.P.Mansinghka (P) Ltd. The said case arose under Section 55 of the 1922 Act which is the precursor of Section 256(1) of the Act. Ruling on the scope of the said provision, the Division Bench

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

260A of the Act is barred. To that extent, the Senior Counsel is correct and is well supported by the ratio in S.P.Mansinghka (P) Ltd. The said case arose under Section 55 of the 1922 Act which is the precursor of Section 256(1) of the Act. Ruling on the scope of the said provision, the Division Bench

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

260A of lncome Tax Act 1961 aggrieved by the order of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Beach, Hyderabad, dated 08-04-2005 in ITA No.26ZHydl99 (Assessment year 1990-91) preferred against the order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) lll Hyderabad dated 12-01-1999 in Appeal No.288/TrlDC.SR.1/ClT(A)lll98/99 preferred against the order of the deputy commissioner

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

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2007-08. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court on the following substantial questions of law: "(1) Whether the Tribunal is right in applying

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

The appeal is disposed of

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 by a bench of this Court vide order dated 04.07.2013 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the Tribunal

M/s. Dakshin Infrastructures Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly referred to hereinafter as ‘the Act’) assailing the common order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HCJ & NTRJ I.T.T.A.Nos.259 of 2022 & batch 2 Hyderabad Bench ‘A’, Hyderabad (briefly referred to hereinafter as ‘Tribunal’) disposing of the following appeals corresponding to the relevant assessment years: Sl.No. & Appellant

M/s Kausalya Agro Farms and Developers pvt. ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (briefly referred to hereinafter as ‘the Act’) assailing the common order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HCJ & NTRJ I.T.T.A.Nos.259 of 2022 & batch 2 Hyderabad Bench ‘A’, Hyderabad (briefly referred to hereinafter as ‘Tribunal’) disposing of the following appeals corresponding to the relevant assessment years: Sl.No. & Appellant

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

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) have been filed by the revenue. The subject matter of I.T.A.No.370/2011 & I.T.A.No.37/2012 pertains to Assessment year 1996-97. Since, appeals have been decided by two different judgments, though they pertain to the same Assessment year and since, common questions of law arise

Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Krosur

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) has been preferred by the revenue, whereas, I.T.A.No.148/2011 has been preferred by the assessee. Since, both the appeals arise out of common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short) and on account of similarity

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 Inccome Tax-II vs. Jaypeem Granites [P] Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

260A of the Income Tax Act (the ‘Act’ in brevity) is directed against the order dated 30th September, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A - Bench, Kolkata (the ‘Tribunal’) in ITA No.576/Kol/2009 for the assessment year 2002-03. This appeal was admitted on 22nd April, 2010 for the following substantial question of law: 2 “Whether on the facts

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

260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 1961”) have arisen from the same judgment dated 15.9.1999 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench 'A', Allahabad(hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal) in ITA No. 1551(Alld) of 1997 relating to Block period from 1.4.1994 to 28.11.1996. Assessee as well as Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter referred

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. RASA AGROTECH PRIVATE LTD.

Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 260A of the Act. Therefore, the last date for filing the appeals was 26th October 2007. Keeping that view if the actual dates for filing of the two appeals are taken into consideration then the actual delay works out to far more than what is claimed by the Revenue. As far as ITA No. 453 of 2012 is concerned

PR COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

260A of the Act comprise the General Electric group of companies: GE Energy Parts Inc (“GEP” hereafter); General Electric International Operations Company Inc. (“GEIOC” hereafter); GE India Industrial Pvt. Ltd and (GEIIPL). All challenge a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”) which concluded that the appellant PE in India and were, therefore, liable to file income

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

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) against the order dated 27.02.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Bangalore (‘Tribunal’ for short) relating to the assessment year 2006-07. 2. The appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether in law, the authorities below were justified in approving