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 :-

1) of the Act is considered to be an order of assessment, in the subsequent reassessment proceeding, the original assessment proceeding get effaced and the Assessing Officer was required to consider the proceeding de novo and to consider the claim of the assessee.” 18. Thus, we are of the considered view that there being no original assessment order

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

32 THESE STRPs HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 29.11.2022 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, P.S. DINESH KUMAR J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER This batch of Revision Petitions by the Revenue is being disposed of by this common judgment as they involve common questions of law. 2. The facts are illustratively taken from STRP

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

ii) that the duty with interest and penalty that has been paid falls short of the amount actually payable, then the proper officer shall proceed to issue the notice as provided for in clause (a) of sub-section (1) in respect of such amount which falls short of the amount actually payable in the manner specified under that sub-section

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

The appeal is allowed

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

32 funds/investments created by any spouse/grandparents in favour of the children, this would also be taken into consideration while deciding the final child support. 74. Further the Hon’ble Apex Court from paragraphs 77 to 85 has laid down the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance taking into consideration the objection of granting interim/permanent alimony to ensure that dependent

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

reassess the duty leviable on such goods. 5. The scope of Section 17(4) and the exercise which is liable to be undertaken by the proper officer must also be appreciated in the backdrop of Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 which reads as follows:- "RULE 12. Rejection of declared value. - 1

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

reassess the duty leviable on such goods. 5. The scope of Section 17(4) and the exercise which is liable to be undertaken by the proper officer must also be appreciated in the backdrop of Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 which reads as follows:- "RULE 12. Rejection of declared value. - 1

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

32 STC 629 AND 'STATE OF A.P. Vs. COROMANDEL PAINTS AND CHEMICALS LTD.' (1995) 98 STC 82 AP. 9. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the advance ruling of ACAR dated 31.03.2006 is without jurisdiction and is non est as it has 11 been given by an Authority constituted under Section 4 of the Act interpreting

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

II - Containing detailed expenditure in firm and others having pages 1-30. iii) SET - III - Titled as MR - 69/91 containing pages 1-8 showing summary of accounts in the diary. iv) SET-IV - Summary of accounts of diary titled as MR - 70/91 having pages 1-30. v) SET - V - Titled as MR - 72/91 showing details of payments etc. having

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

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

II - Containing detailed expenditure in firm and others having pages 1-30. iii) SET - III - Titled as MR - 69/91 containing pages 1-8 showing summary of accounts in the diary. iv) SET-IV - Summary of accounts of diary titled as MR - 70/91 having pages 1-30. v) SET - V - Titled as MR - 72/91 showing details of payments etc. having

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

II - Containing detailed expenditure in firm and others having pages 1-30. iii) SET - III - Titled as MR - 69/91 containing pages 1-8 showing summary of accounts in the diary. iv) SET-IV - Summary of accounts of diary titled as MR - 70/91 having pages 1-30. v) SET - V - Titled as MR - 72/91 showing details of payments etc. having

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

II - Containing detailed expenditure in firm and others having pages 1-30. iii) SET - III - Titled as MR - 69/91 containing pages 1-8 showing summary of accounts in the diary. iv) SET-IV - Summary of accounts of diary titled as MR - 70/91 having pages 1-30. v) SET - V - Titled as MR - 72/91 showing details of payments etc. having

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

ii) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS TO THE EXTENT AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'C' BENCH, BENGALURU IN ITA NO.1372/BANG/2014 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 29.02.2016. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A

Dr.D. Siva Sankara Rao-HUF vs. I.T.O. Ward-2, Eluru

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

32 of 171 Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. versus NATHU & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate. Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners + LA.APP. 1145/2008 UOI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. versus BALBIR

P.V.S.Raju vs. The Addl. C.I.T.

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

32 of 171 Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. versus NATHU & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate. Mr. Inder Singh, Adv. for Claimants/Land owners + LA.APP. 1145/2008 UOI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. versus BALBIR

Pinna Nageswara RAo, vs. Commissioner of Income tax, IV (A.P)

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX-7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S SRI VENKATESWARA PADMAVATHI COMPAY, KHAMMAM DIST

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

Kuchipudi Krishna Kishore vs. THE DCIT, CIR-2[1],

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

Commissioner of Income Tax -II, vs. M/S Kasila Farms Ltd.,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

THE PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. L. SURYAKANTHAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires