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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 147 of the IT Act were completed and following income was assessed as under : 6 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters Assessment year Income Assessed (₹) 1988-89 44,39,320=00 1989-90 2,58,94,870=00 1990-91 24,35

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

Section 147 of the IT Act were completed and following income was assessed as under : 6 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters Assessment year Income Assessed (₹) 1988-89 44,39,320=00 1989-90 2,58,94,870=00 1990-91 24,35

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

35 of 66 v. Narayanan Nair (1994) 2 SCC 14. 42. A distinction is sought to be drawn between the specific functions of a Customs Officer under Section 6 of the Act and the power to appoint an officer of the Customs under Section 4 of the Act. It is submitted that the functions under Section

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

35 of 137 (b) ―foreign currency‖ and ―Indian currency‖ have the meanings respectively assigned to them in clause (m) and clause (q) of Section 2 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999).]‖ 20. As is evident from a reading of Section 14, the value of imported and exported goods is recognized to be the transaction value

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

35 of 137 (b) ―foreign currency‖ and ―Indian currency‖ have the meanings respectively assigned to them in clause (m) and clause (q) of Section 2 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (42 of 1999).]‖ 20. As is evident from a reading of Section 14, the value of imported and exported goods is recognized to be the transaction value

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

reassessed in terms of Section 154 of the Act and upon the amount being crystalized the same was immediately refunded to the respondent and the question of payment of interests does not and cannot arise. 9. The learned advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that the respondent in all the shipping bills indicated the iron content

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 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/s Devi Sea Foods Ltd.,

Section 35 of FEMA does not provide an efficacious remedy. In fact there could hardly be any reason since the High Court itself is the appellate forum." The Supreme Court in Rajkumar Shivhare vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement-(2010) 4 SCC 772, has in para 34 held as under: (27 of 29) [SAW-491/2017] “34. When a statutory

The Pr. Commissioner of Income -Tax-6 vs. M/s. B.Surendra Chowdary

Section 35 of FEMA does not provide an efficacious remedy. In fact there could hardly be any reason since the High Court itself is the appellate forum." The Supreme Court in Rajkumar Shivhare vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement-(2010) 4 SCC 772, has in para 34 held as under: (27 of 29) [SAW-491/2017] “34. When a statutory

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K.V.Ram Kumar

Section 35 of FEMA does not provide an efficacious remedy. In fact there could hardly be any reason since the High Court itself is the appellate forum." The Supreme Court in Rajkumar Shivhare vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement-(2010) 4 SCC 772, has in para 34 held as under: (27 of 29) [SAW-491/2017] “34. When a statutory

The Agricultural Market Committee vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

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

35,34,420/-. For the succeeding assessment year, i.e. A.Y. 2001-02, which is the year under appeal, however, no return was filed. On 28.10.2004, the Assessing Officer recorded the following, as reasons under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟) for the purpose of initiating proceedings towards escaped assessment for the year

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

reassessments” of such awards. MAC App. Nos. 554/2010 & conn. Page 35 of 70 46. In R K Malik (supra), the Supreme Court enhanced the compensation awarded by this Court by another sum of ₹75,000/- in each case describing it as “compensation for the future prospects of the children”, interestingly clarifying that this represented “roughly half of the amount given

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

35  the issue involved in these petitions are covered by the authority in State of Punjab & Others Vs. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd7 (hereinafter referred to as the Nokia India Case).  mobile charger is not an integral part of the mobile phone to treat among ‘composite goods’ because merely making a composite package of cell phone, charger shall not make

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

35:47 Signature Not Verified OMP(COMM) 274/2022 Page 57 of 76 (c) In case of termination by the Sub Lessor under this sub- clause 8A, the Sub Lessee shall be further liable to pay the total aggregate rent for the remainder portion of the unexpired Lock-in Period of the sub lease (hereinafter referred to as the 'Balance Rent

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

reassessing or reappreciating the evidence. An award can be challenged only under the grounds mentioned in Section 34 (2) of the Act. The Arbitral Tribunal has examined the facts and held that both the second respondent and the appellant are liable. The case as put forward by the first respondent has been accepted. Even the minority view was that

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

35 1159.2. Only such taxes as are discriminatory in nature are prohibited by Article 304(a). It follows that levy of a non- discriminatory tax would not constitute an infraction of Article 301. 1159.3. Clauses (a) and (b) of Article 304 have to be read disjunctively. 1159.4. A levy that violates Article 304(a) cannot be saved even

PR COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 131 of the Act. The assessee furnished the information through its representative - RSM & Co./Pricewaterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vide letters dated 16.03.2007, 09.04.2007, 27.02.2008, ITA 621/2017 & connected matters Page 7 of 85 24.03.2008 and 26.03.2008. The GE Group is a diversified technology, media and financial services company with products and services ranging from aircraft engines, power generation, water processing

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

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

35 of 171 Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav Kumar, Advocates for DDA Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Latika Malhotra, Mr. Govind Kumar, Mr. Apurv Kumar, Ms. Anamika, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 89/2009 OM PRAKASH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS .....Appellant Through: Mr. R.B. Singh, Mr. Rajan Sharma Mr. Deepak Gola and Mr. Shivansh