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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals with cases where the importer

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals with cases where the importer

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

D' IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK M/1, BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD STRP NO. 08 OF 2022 AND CONNECTED MATTERS 15 BHAVANINAGAR, SUDDAGUNTE PALYA BENGALURU-560 029. REP. BY ITS MANAGER …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. RAVI RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE) THIS STRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 65(1) OF KARNATAKA VALUE ADDED TAX 2003 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.03.2021 PASSED IN STA NOS. 20 TO 22/2019

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Kalyani Wines

In the result, I find this appeal bereft of merit and accordingly,

Bench: Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Robin Phukan

27,72,649/-? (B) Whether the claimant is entitled to claim compensation/payment due against escalation amount to Rs. 28,92,193/-? (C) Whether claimant is entitled to incidental claims for damages and loss for breach of contract conditions for Lump Sum? (D) Whether the claimant is entitled to the cost incurred in the arbitration proceeding? (E) Whether the claimant

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

d) the assets seized under section 132 or requisitioned under section 132A shall be retained to the extent necessary and the provisions of section 132B shall apply subject to such modifications as may be necessary and the references to “regular assessment” or “reassessment” in Section 132B shall be construed as references to “block assessment” . (emphasis applied) 26. Photocopy of warrant

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

The appeal is allowed

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

D. Bhagat (Mrs.), (1994)1 SCC 337, the wife alleged in her written statement that her husband was suffering from “mental problems and paranoid disorder”. The wife’s lawyer also levelled allegations of “lunacy” and “insanity” against the husband and his family while he was conducting a cross-examination. TheHon’ble Apex Court held these allegations against the husband

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

D) Reference is made to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of CIT v K.V. Krishnaswamy Naidu6, to submit that the authorised officer, the Director (Inv.), was only confined to carry out search and seizure, but was not the Income- Tax Officer who could pass an order under sub-section (5) of Section 132 and could

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

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

D) Reference is made to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of CIT v K.V. Krishnaswamy Naidu6, to submit that the authorised officer, the Director (Inv.), was only confined to carry out search and seizure, but was not the Income- Tax Officer who could pass an order under sub-section (5) of Section 132 and could

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

D) Reference is made to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of CIT v K.V. Krishnaswamy Naidu6, to submit that the authorised officer, the Director (Inv.), was only confined to carry out search and seizure, but was not the Income- Tax Officer who could pass an order under sub-section (5) of Section 132 and could

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

D) Reference is made to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of CIT v K.V. Krishnaswamy Naidu6, to submit that the authorised officer, the Director (Inv.), was only confined to carry out search and seizure, but was not the Income- Tax Officer who could pass an order under sub-section (5) of Section 132 and could

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

d Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals[2]. 2. For the levy of penalty under Section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, the assessing officer has to form his own opinion and record satisfaction of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in his proceedings, otherwise it would be a jurisdictional defect. In the present case, no such

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

M/s. Kausalya Shelters Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

27, 2020. Digitally Signed By:DHARMENDER SINGH Signing Date:30.05.2023 18:35:47 Signature Not Verified OMP(COMM) 274/2022 Page 40 of 76 65. It is his case that immediately on the termination of the sub-lease deed, proviso (c) to Clause 8 stood attracted, which clearly stipulated that in the event, respondent terminated the sub-lease deed under Clause

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. RASA AGROTECH PRIVATE LTD.

Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

D E R % 24.08.2015 ITA Nos. 453 & 464 of 2012 Page 2 of 12 CM No. 13614/2010 (for condonation of delay in filing the appeal) & CM No. 13616/2012 (for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal) in ITA No. 453/2012 CM No. 14085/2012 (for condonation of delay in filing the appeal) in ITA No. 464/2012 1. These are three

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Hyderabad House Pvt Ltd.,

reassessment of damages. This is what was the theme of discourse in Santosh Devi (supra) and in a later decision in Puttamma (supra). In Puttamma (supra), the Supreme Court called upon the State to explain inaction on its part in the context of authorization given to the Central Government by Section 163-A (3) to make improvements on account

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

M/s. PLL-Suncon Joint Venture vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

27 of 44 Where the error of finding of facts having a bearing on the award is patent and is easily demonstrable without the necessity of carefully weighing the various possible viewpoints, the interference with award based on erroneous finding of fact is permissible. Similarly, if an award is based by applying a principle of law which is patently erroneous

The Commissioner of Income Tax -III vs. Sri T.C. Reddy

The appeal stands dismissed

27,30,094 received by the appellant as profits in 1942-1943 is taxable under the Act, and that, in turn, depends on whether the forward contracts which resulted in these profits were made at Gwalior as contended by the appellant or at Bombay as held by the Tribunal. That would clearly be a question of fact, and the decision