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

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

reassessment: 1. xxxxxxx (2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), in relation to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1971, and any subsequent assessment year, an order of fresh assessment under Section 146 or in pursuance of an order, under Section 250, Section 254, Section 263

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

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

1.--Production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the foregoing proviso. Explanation 2. - xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx".. 11. This Court notices that Phool Chand Bajrang Lal (supra) is an authority

M/s.CCL Products [India] Limited vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax-I

1,77,48,529/- on account of unexplained sales and ` 3,49,65,324/- on account of unexplained purchases. Feeling aggrieved against the order of CIT under Section GURBACHAN SINGH 2014.09.04 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh ITA No. 360 of 2011 -4- 263 of the Act, the assessee filed

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-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

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

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

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

1) xxxxx (2) xxxxx (3) Re-assessment proceedings will be invalid in case an issue or query is raised and answered by the assessee in original assessment proceedings but thereafter the Assessing Officer does not make any addition in the assessment order. In such situations it should be accepted that the issue was examined but the Assessing Officer

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

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

1) (c) of the Act 1961 was separately initiated against the petitioner. The Assessee Company has not filed any appeal against the assessment order and filed revision under 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

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