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

274(2) of the Act to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c) . In appeal before the Tribunal it was submitted on behalf of the assessee that there had been no valid levy of the penalties because the penalty proceedings had not been commenced in the course of proceedings under the Act. The Tribunal rejected this contention

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

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 and Ms. K.Mamata Choudary, learned Standing Counsel, Income

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

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 and Ms. K.Mamata Choudary, learned Standing Counsel, Income

SYED ABBAS MIAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-I,KURNOOL

274 (Bengal Paper Mill Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Calcutta and Others) in this regard. 33. Learned advocate appearing for Emami Agrotech Ltd has submitted that, validation acts can only be passed to cure defects are lacuna which are in the nature of small repairs and not to carry out substantial amendments which has the effect

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

274 AND 302/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU, ALLOWING THE APPEALS FILED AGAINST IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.04.2015 PASSED IN VAT AP NOS. 61/15-16, VAT AP NO.142/15-16, VAT AP NO. 136/15- 16, VAT AP NO.137/15-16, VAT AP NO.138/15-16 ON THE FILE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, (APPEALS-1) BENGALURU, DISMISSING THE APPEALS AND UPHOLDING

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

Section 166 on fault-liability principle reveals that the compensation received in the former in the present times cannot qualify, by any stretch of reasoning, as “just” compensation. 32. It has been noted ad nauseam in judgments after judgments that the approach of the tribunals and courts in determining the amount of compensation which is “just” has not only been

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) vs. M/s. Hindustan RAtna (JV)

The Appeals are disposed of by modifying the award dated 20

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 146 of the Evidence Act, which permits a witness to be questioned, inter alia, in order to test his veracity. Thereafter, the unchallenged part of -6- his evidence is to be relied upon, for the reason that it is impossible for the witness to explain or elaborate upon any doubts as regards the same, in the absence of questions

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

The appeal stands dismissed

274 of the Income-tax Act for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars are initiated separately. (iv) The assessee has booked various expenses of contractual nature, vide order sheet entry dated 29.12.2009, the assessee was asked to show cause why the same should not disallowed u/s40a(ia). In response thereto the assessee has only filed copy of bills of these

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

The appeal is allowed

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

274 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 785] cited the judgment in Chander Parkash [Chander Parkash v. Shila Rani, 1968 SCC OnLine Del 52 : AIR 1968 Del 174] with approval, and held that the obligation of the husband to provide maintenance stands on a higher pedestal than the wife. 76. This Court, in the touchstone of aforesaid judgment, is now coming