The Commissioner of Income Tax - III, vs. M/s. Suven Pharmaceuticals Limited,

Appeals are dismissed

3) Where,   as   a   result   of   an   order   of  reassessment or recomputation under section  147 [or section 153A], the amount on which  interest was payable under sub­section (1

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

3-3-1987 and the income in the returns at Rs.1,64,930/- is accepted.” Nowhere has the assessing officer noted in the assessment order his satisfaction that there was either concealment of income by the assessee or that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars in his return of income and that there is a case made out for initiating

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

1)(a)(ii) of the KVAT Act. However, insofar as it relates to Telecommunication equipment, the same requires to be notified by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under the KVAT Act and the State Government has been issuing Notifications specifying the products which would be treated as IT products;  Notification No. FD 43 CSL 07(02) dated

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

3) Where the proper officer is of the opinion that the amount paid under clause (b) of sub-section (1) falls short of the amount actually payable, then, he shall proceed to issue the notice as provided for in clause (a) of that sub-section in respect of such amount which falls short of the amount actually payable

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

3 BoE 4 NIDB Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page 15 of 137 relinquishing its right to receive a speaking order as contemplated under Section 17(5) of the Act. 4. Post the BoE being reassessed, the appellant preferred first appeals before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

3 BoE 4 NIDB Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page 15 of 137 relinquishing its right to receive a speaking order as contemplated under Section 17(5) of the Act. 4. Post the BoE being reassessed, the appellant preferred first appeals before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar,

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 10Th April, 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Advocate Ms. Swapna Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Sanjay Bhowmick, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. The Assessment Years Involved In The Present Appeal Are Assessment Year 1999-2000 & Assessment Year 2000-01. By Order Dated 16.08.2012, This Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :-

3(1) Bangalore (2021) 283 Taxmann 98 (Karnataka) and it was held as under : “11. In the instant case, admittedly, there is no original assessment order in the case of the assessee and it was only an intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, which cannot be treated to be an order in view of decision of the Supreme

Mr. Vasamsetty Veera Venkata Satyanarayana vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1

The appeal is allowed and the order passed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

1) (as it stood then) are attracted. Therefore, the theory as propounded by the respondent that the assessment made at the first instance was a provisional assessment is outrightly rejected. 32. We are also prompted to examine as to what would fall within the scope of Section 154 of the Act which deals with correction/clerical errors etc. Section 154 states

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

The appeal is allowed

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

3 SCC (Civ) 290] (SCC p.116, para 12) while dealing with the concept of permanent alimony, this Court has observed that while granting permanent alimony, the court is required to take note of the fact that the 2026:JHHC:1680-DB 39 amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

3) read with Section 147 of the IT Act for all the years under consideration except allowing the relief to the assessee on the issue relating to the levy of interest under Section 139(8) and Section 217 of the A.Y. 1988-89. h) Feeling aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the assessee preferred appeal for the assessment

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

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

3) read with Section 147 of the IT Act for all the years under consideration except allowing the relief to the assessee on the issue relating to the levy of interest under Section 139(8) and Section 217 of the A.Y. 1988-89. h) Feeling aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the assessee preferred appeal for the assessment

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3) read with Section 147 of the IT Act for all the years under consideration except allowing the relief to the assessee on the issue relating to the levy of interest under Section 139(8) and Section 217 of the A.Y. 1988-89. h) Feeling aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the assessee preferred appeal for the assessment

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

3) read with Section 147 of the IT Act for all the years under consideration except allowing the relief to the assessee on the issue relating to the levy of interest under Section 139(8) and Section 217 of the A.Y. 1988-89. h) Feeling aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the assessee preferred appeal for the assessment

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

1), if any tax is, not paid by a 28 dealer who has failed to get registered though liable to do so or fraudulently evaded attracting punishment under Section 79, an assessment or reassessment may be made within eight years from the end of the prescribed tax period. Provided that an assessment or reassessment relating to any tax period upto

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

3) read with Section 147 of the Act determined the income of the assessee at Rs.51,71,70,670/- and made following additions: (a) disallowance of contributions made to funds -Rs.10,86,43,782/-. (b) additional loss claimed on sale of securities - Rs.8,28,65,052/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Moschip Semiconductor Technology Ltd.,

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

reassessment proceedings, simply to verify the contents of the return, unlike before it was vested in him in making regular assessment. It was found that the time-limit available for issuance of notice and making assessment under Section 143(3) had expired, but then, on that count, he cannot assume the jurisdiction by venturing to make assessment under Section

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

3) read with Section 147 on 31.12.2007. 12 This was carried in appeal by the assessee and was successful partially. The assessee being aggrieved by the finding recorded by the Appellate Commissioner that reopening being proper, filed further appeal before the Tribunal and the revenue being aggrieved by the grant of partial relief to the assessee by the Appellate Commissioner

Andhra PRadesh Pradesh Fibres Limited vs. Assistant commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, the order passed by the

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

3. The provisions of sub-Sections (1) and (2) shall not apply to the following classes of assessments., reassessmnents and recomputations which may, subject to the provisions of sub-Section (2A), be completed at any time- (i) xxxxxx (ii) where the assessment, reassessment