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 264

EVEREST ORGANICS LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF I.T., HYDERABAD

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

264 of the Act) set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax on the ground that the CWT sought instructions from the Central Board. The Court held that the power conferred under Section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act was not administrative power but quasi judicial power and the Central Board could not give directions

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

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

264 of the Act) set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax on the ground that the CWT sought instructions from the Central Board. The Court held that the power conferred under Section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act was not administrative power but quasi judicial power and the Central Board could not give directions

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

264 of the Act) set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax on the ground that the CWT sought instructions from the Central Board. The Court held that the power conferred under Section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act was not administrative power but quasi judicial power and the Central Board could not give directions

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

264 of the Act) set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax on the ground that the CWT sought instructions from the Central Board. The Court held that the power conferred under Section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act was not administrative power but quasi judicial power and the Central Board could not give directions

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

264 of the Act. The Supreme Court in RAJESH JHAVERI supra has held that an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act cannot be treated as an order of assessment. In the instant case, admittedly, no original assessment was made in case of the assessee. The assessee has made a claim in the return filed in response

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

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

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 for the assessees/appellants

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

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 for the assessees/appellants

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 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

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

264 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (AUDIT-4.1) DVO-4, 4TH FLOOR ROOM NO.404, VTK-2 KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 047. STRP NO. 08 OF 2022 AND CONNECTED MATTERS 23 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS-4) 2ND FLOOR, TTMC 'B' BLOCK BMTC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 027. …PETITIONERS (BY SHRI. JEEVAN

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

reassessment proceedings. The assessees resisted the move to assess them, contending that they were not subjected to income tax laws of India as they had no permanent establishment. The AO by order dated 31.12.2008 held that the appellant has a fixed place PE and DAPE in India. Further, the AO also deemed 10% of the value of supplies made