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

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

263 of the Act. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeals. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the following judgments: (i) (2002) 256 ITR 1 Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. (ii) (2001)116 Taxman 274 (Kar) Commissioner of Income – Tax vs. Hardware Trading Co. (iii) Replika Press Private Limited & Another vs. Deputy

The Commissioner of Income Tax -V, vs. M/S Secunderabad Club

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

reassessment, but rather, the corrective jurisdiction under Section 263. That such jurisdiction cannot be exercised for some reasons, would not entitle

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. Therefore, the learned Tribunal found that the CIT(A) was not justified in invoking the provisions of Section 263

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

263, 264, 265, 266, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 279, 281, 283, 284 and 294 of 2022 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan) This order will dispose of the above batch of income tax appeals. 2. Heard Mr. Dwarakanath, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Karthik Ramana Puttam Reddy, learned counsel

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

263, 264, 265, 266, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 279, 281, 283, 284 and 294 of 2022 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan) This order will dispose of the above batch of income tax appeals. 2. Heard Mr. Dwarakanath, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Karthik Ramana Puttam Reddy, learned counsel

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Kumar Raja Associates

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

reassessment proceedings during the pendency of a fresh assessment of the set aside case, ignoring the fact that in the present case the ITAT vide its earlier order dated 29.05.98 has held the assessment made under Section 144 as invalid and not legally correct and thus, in the present case there was no issue of set aside assessment?” 4. Counsel

The Prl Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Institute of Development and Research in Banking Technology

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

reassessment will be invalid because the Assessing Officer had formed an opinion in the original assessment, though he had not recorded his reasons." (Emphasis Supplied) 19. It is also further held that Revenue is not without remedy and it can invoke power under Section 263

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

263 ITR 484 (P & H) 5 (2005) 277 ITR 337 (Delhi) 6 (2000) 246 ITR 568 (Delhi) 7 (2000) 246 ITR 571 (Delhi) 8 (2009) 309 ITR 143 (Delhi) (FB) 9 (2008) 307 ITR 147 (Delhi) 10 (2007) 291 ITR 519(SC) 11 (2000)241 ITR 124 (MP) 12(2001)251 ITR 009 (SC) 13(2010)291ITR 519 (SC) 14AIR

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, vs. M/S Sigachi Laboratories Ltd.,

The appeals are allowed in the above terms

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

reassessment of the proceedings under the said provision was not satisfied? 2. The necessary facts in this case are that the assessee (M/s Jindal GTA 1/2005, 2/2006 & 3/2007 Page 2 of 4 Equipment Leasing & Consultancy Services Ltd) held shares in Jindal Strips Limited (JSL). Similarly, Stainless Investments Ltd. and Mansarovar Investment Ltd (the appellants in GTA 2/2006 and GTA 3/2007

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

263, 265 AND 267/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE APPEALS FILED AGAINST THE ORDERS DATED 28.02.2017 PASSED IN VAT AP.56/ 2016-17, VAT AP.222/15-16, VAT AP.117/16-17 DISMISSING THE APPEALS PASSED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS) SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU, AND UPHOLDING THE IMPUGNED RE-ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 10.12.2015, ORDERS REJECTING THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATIONS

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s Transport Corporation of India

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

Section 264 of the Act 1961. In the said revision, the petitioner/Assessee has raised a ground that in making addition to Rs.57,41,353/- to the total income of the assessee for alleged shortage of stock found at the time of survey by Central Excise Authority is unjust and bad in law and at the most GP, if any, could