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

2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the tribunal was correct in holding that reopening of assessment is mere change of opinion, when the assessing officer has not considered the eligibility of the income derived from rendering technical services abroad to be eligible for deduction under Section 10-A or not?” 4. Briefly stated facts

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

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

2. This appeal has been filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) against the order dated 24.6.2011 (Annexure A-IV) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench “A”, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in ITA No. 1048/CHANDI/2008 for the assessment year 2005-06 claiming the following

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

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

263. That such jurisdiction cannot be exercised for some reasons, would not entitle the revenue to resort to reassessment, which in this case, is nothing but impermissible review. Considering that the reassessment is premised on reasons which were explicitly gone into (evident from queries to the assessee during the original assessment) for previous years, in the three writ petitions

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2 “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal substantially erred in law on holding that the Commissioner of Income Tax could not invoke the provisions of Section 263 in respect of the capital expenditure of Rs.1,60,75,000/-?” We have heard Mr. Amit Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant/revenue

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

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

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

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

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2. This Court while admitting the appeal (160/2008) on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the ITAT was right and justified in dismissing the appeal as having become infructuous and not deciding the same on merits, on the ground that the asseessment order has been quashed on the ground of being barred by limitation?” 3. Another appeal (170/2008

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

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

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 did not find

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

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

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

2 of accounts and records, it was noticed that there has been survey operation conducted by the Central Excise Authority on 22.10.2008 wherein it was found that there was shortage of closing stock of finished goods at 171.05 metric tonnes (MT) and raw material of 45.655 MT and the concerned Authority has worked out the under valuation at Rs.57