Commissioner of Income Tax- IT and TP vs. M/s. Louis Berger International Inc.,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 17(5) of the Act. 4. Post the BoE being reassessed, the appellant preferred first appeals before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The first appellate authority by a common order disposed of 27

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s. Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 17(5) of the Act. 4. Post the BoE being reassessed, the appellant preferred first appeals before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The first appellate authority by a common order disposed of 27

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

27. The aforesaid letter dated 20.03.95 which was written by DDIT (Inv.) to Mr. K.M. Verma, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (AO) in most indubitable way dictated him to initiate reassessment proceedings. In our view, this letter in unequivocal 30 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters terms the DDIT (Inv.) has exceeded its general power of superintendence and influenced

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

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

27. The aforesaid letter dated 20.03.95 which was written by DDIT (Inv.) to Mr. K.M. Verma, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (AO) in most indubitable way dictated him to initiate reassessment proceedings. In our view, this letter in unequivocal 30 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters terms the DDIT (Inv.) has exceeded its general power of superintendence and influenced

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

27. The aforesaid letter dated 20.03.95 which was written by DDIT (Inv.) to Mr. K.M. Verma, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (AO) in most indubitable way dictated him to initiate reassessment proceedings. In our view, this letter in unequivocal 30 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters terms the DDIT (Inv.) has exceeded its general power of superintendence and influenced

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

27. The aforesaid letter dated 20.03.95 which was written by DDIT (Inv.) to Mr. K.M. Verma, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (AO) in most indubitable way dictated him to initiate reassessment proceedings. In our view, this letter in unequivocal 30 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters terms the DDIT (Inv.) has exceeded its general power of superintendence and influenced

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Akula Nageswara Rao

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

27 court shall not be taken into account in computing such period for assessment or reassessment as the case may be." Section

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

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

reassessment notices in the three petitions does not suffer from any infirmity. The revenue realized that the excess deduction claimed by the assessee led to substantial revenue loss; before the matter could get barred, notices under Section 147/148 were issued. Reliance was placed on Phool Chand Bajrang Lal & Anr v Income Tax Officer & Anr [1993] 203 ITR 456 (SC), where

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s. BDR Projects Pvt. Ltd.

27 of 66 29. Section 28 (11) of the Act reads as under: “(11) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court of law, tribunal or other authority, all persons appointed as officers of Customs under sub-Section (1) of Section 4 before the 6th day of July 2011 shall be deemed

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

27,150/-. However, no order of assessment was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act on 31.03.2012. The assessee filed the return of income in response to the aforesaid notice on 13.09.2012 and declared total income of Rs.32,56,61,835/-. In the return of income

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

27 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS-3) 2ND FLOOR, TTMC 'B' BLOCK BMTC BUILDING K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 027. …PETITIONERS (BY SHRI. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, AGA) AND: M/s. SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. NO.30, 2ND AND 5TH FLOOR JNR CITY CENTRE RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD SAMPANGIRAMANAGAR BENGALURU-560 027. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI

M/S NMDC LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

27 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty allegedly inflicted by the appellant- wife. Subsequently, the appellant-wife filed Misc. Case No. 155 of 2008 in the same suit under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking interim maintenance for herself and the minor son. The Trial Court, by order

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

27. In M.K.Sharma’s case (9 supra), where the assessment order contained the words “Assessed. Issue necessary forms. Penalty under Sections 271 (1) (a), 271 (1) (b), 271 (1) (c) and 273/274 of the Income Tax Act have been initiated. Charge interest under Sections 139 (8) and 215/217 of the Income Tax Act,” the Delhi High Court held that

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

reassessment” in Section 132B shall be construed as references to “block assessment” . (emphasis applied) 26. Photocopy of warrant of authorisation issued in Form 45 under Section 112(I) of Income Tax Rules, pursuant whereto search was conducted at Assessee's premises on 28.11.1996 was produced before Tribunal, which are quoted in para 11.2 of Tribunal's order and relevant extract

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S Sri Krishna Drugs Ltd.,

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

27,76,045/- as mesne profit towards arrears of rent. The decree for mesne profits/damages against the tenant-defendant was @ `.75,000/- per month from the date of filing of suit to the date of vacation, with costs. 3. The AO reopened the assessment for assessment years 1992-93 to 1998-99 alleging that the assessee knew that higher amount

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

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

27,67,000/- and Rs.79,12,000/- under Section 40(a) of the Act. Assessee has submitted its detailed reply on October 5, 2011. The AO has noticed the said reply in the assessment order. However, the AO has disallowed deduction and added back the amount on the ground that it was 'inadvertently' allowed by the AO without verifying

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. S.P.Office Needs Pvt Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

27. + ITA 583/2013 CIT ..... Appellant Through: Mr P. Roy Chaudhuri, Senior Standing Counsel. versus ITA 634/2015 &Connected matters Page 3of? 28. + KUSUM GUPTA _ Respondent Through: Mr Sahl Aggarwal and Mr Ravi Pratap Mall, Advocates. AND ITA 584/2013 Appellant Through: Mr P. Roy Chaudhuri, Senior Standing Counsel. CIT versus KUSUSM GUPTA Respondent Through: Mr Salil Aggarwal and Mr Ravi Pratap Mall

Rachit V Shah vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax-7

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 148 and which would necessarily be guided by the judgments of Rajeev Bansal and Ram Balram. 29. The concerned AOs shall consequently pass a reasoned and speaking order dealing with the impact of the judgments referred to above upon the impugned reassessment notices and in the manner indicated in paras 27