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

J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER This petition under Section 65(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) has been filed against the order dated 31.07.2017 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by which the Tribunal has upheld the common order dated 27.12.2012 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2007-08. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court on the following substantial questions

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

The appeal is allowed

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

J.] 1. Both the appeals have been preferred under section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. 2. Since both the appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 16.02.2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa in Original M.M.Suit No. 68 of 2016, as such, both the appeals have been 2026:JHHC:1680-DB 2 tagged together

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

J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Revenue has preferred these appeals calling in question the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Bangalore in ITA Nos. 283/BANG/2012 and 267/Bang/2012 dated 30.09.2013 whereunder the Tribunal, while 3 examining the validity of re-opening of the assessment, has set aside the same on the ground that Assessing Officer, on mere

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

J. 1. Five appeals filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) {for brevity ‘the CIT(A)’} before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur (for brevity ‘the ITAT’). Since common issue was involved, all the appeals were considered and decided by the ITAT by a consolidated order dated 31-8-2004 by which

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

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

J. 1. Five appeals filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) {for brevity ‘the CIT(A)’} before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur (for brevity ‘the ITAT’). Since common issue was involved, all the appeals were considered and decided by the ITAT by a consolidated order dated 31-8-2004 by which

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

J. 1. Five appeals filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) {for brevity ‘the CIT(A)’} before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur (for brevity ‘the ITAT’). Since common issue was involved, all the appeals were considered and decided by the ITAT by a consolidated order dated 31-8-2004 by which

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

J. 1. Five appeals filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) {for brevity ‘the CIT(A)’} before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur (for brevity ‘the ITAT’). Since common issue was involved, all the appeals were considered and decided by the ITAT by a consolidated order dated 31-8-2004 by which

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

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

J. 14.05.2011 17 years 4,20,000/- 13.12.2012 K. 30.06.2011 10 years 6,68,520/-* 26.04.2014 L. 02.10.2011 11 years 3,75,000/- 31.05.2014 M. 02.05.2012 14 years 3,75,000/- 29.09.2014 N. 04.02.2013 4 years 3,75,000/- 29.07.2013 * excluding medical expenses also awarded. 27. The above table graphically demonstrates not only divergence of opinion but also inconsistencies

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

Section 260A of the Act. Therefore, the last date for filing the appeals was 26th October 2007. Keeping that view if the actual dates for filing of the two appeals are taken into consideration then the actual delay works out to far more than what is claimed by the Revenue. As far as ITA No. 453 of 2012 is concerned

Commissioner of Income Tax-VI vs. Shri Prem Singh

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Ms. Chandrani Das, Adv. Ms. Riti Basu, Adv.

Section 143(2) of the Act was decided against the assessee in the first round of litigation and the said order had attained finality as the assessee had not preferred any appeal against such a finding. Therefore, the said issue was decided against the assessee. With regard to the remaining two issues namely, the validity of initiation of the proceedings

Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax-3 vs. M/s. Spectra Shares AND Scripes Pvt. Ltd.,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Ms. Chandrani Das, Adv. Ms. Riti Basu, Adv.

Section 143(2) of the Act was decided against the assessee in the first round of litigation and the said order had attained finality as the assessee had not preferred any appeal against such a finding. Therefore, the said issue was decided against the assessee. With regard to the remaining two issues namely, the validity of initiation of the proceedings

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

reassessment beyond the expiry of limitation cannot be done unless income has escaped assessment by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year. Therefore, the reasoning assigned by the learned Commissioner (A) to give the nod to the alleged validity