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.

reassessment is to be made. Where the reason for reopening is other than “collusion or any wilful mis- W.P. (C) 441/2013 & connected matters Page 24 of 66 statement or suppression of facts” reopening has to be done within one year from the „relevant date‟. Where it falls within the categories demarcated in terms of Section 28 (4) as amended

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

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

Appeals are dismissed

reassessment  or recomputation exceeds the tax on the total  income determined [under sub­section (1) of  section 143 or] on the basis of the regular  assessment aforesaid. (4) Where,   as   a   result   of   an   order   under  section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or  section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or  section 263 or section

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

The appeal is allowed

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

36 OnLine Del 52 : AIR 1968 Del 174] . The onus is on the husband to establish with necessary material that there are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to maintain the family, and discharge his legal obligations for reasons beyond his control. If the husband does not disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse inference

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

36 of 137 (2) The provisions of this section shall not apply to baggage and goods imported by post. (3) [* * *] 16. Date for determination of rate of duty and tariff valuation of export goods.— [(1) The rate of duty and tariff valuation, if any, applicable to any export goods, shall be the rate and valuation in force

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

36 of 137 (2) The provisions of this section shall not apply to baggage and goods imported by post. (3) [* * *] 16. Date for determination of rate of duty and tariff valuation of export goods.— [(1) The rate of duty and tariff valuation, if any, applicable to any export goods, shall be the rate and valuation in force

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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

36 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters not agile of the matter, but when the communications from higher up were received from Delhi, the AO decided for reassessment. 39. The true test is whether in the given facts and circumstances a person i.e. the AO, who is an employee of the Revenue, too had the capacity to disobey such

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

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

36 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters not agile of the matter, but when the communications from higher up were received from Delhi, the AO decided for reassessment. 39. The true test is whether in the given facts and circumstances a person i.e. the AO, who is an employee of the Revenue, too had the capacity to disobey such

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

36 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters not agile of the matter, but when the communications from higher up were received from Delhi, the AO decided for reassessment. 39. The true test is whether in the given facts and circumstances a person i.e. the AO, who is an employee of the Revenue, too had the capacity to disobey such

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

36 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters not agile of the matter, but when the communications from higher up were received from Delhi, the AO decided for reassessment. 39. The true test is whether in the given facts and circumstances a person i.e. the AO, who is an employee of the Revenue, too had the capacity to disobey such

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in upholding the jurisdiction of the assessing officer in initiating reassessment under Section 147 of the Act overlooking the contention of the appellant that the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act is not applicable since there is full and true disclosure

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

The appeals are allowed

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in upholding the jurisdiction of the assessing officer in initiating reassessment under Section 147 of the Act overlooking the contention of the appellant that the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act is not applicable since there is full and true disclosure

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

1) to the assessee. The assessing officer by an order dated 26.03.1999 passed an order of assessment and inter alia quantified the total taxable income at Rs.8,38,38,080/-. 100% Depreciation claimed by the assessee on pollution control equipment worth Rs.4,93,00,000/- was 6 disallowed and 80% interest on the amount advanced to Madhya Pradesh State Electricity

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Kaveri Bar AND Restaurant,

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

1), KOLKATA & ORS. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN Date : 15th June, 2022 Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Adv. …for the petitioner Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, Asst. S.G. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …for the respondents The Court: Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. In this writ petition petitioner has challenged the impugned notice under Section

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

1) of the Act determinirrg the income of the assessee ar Rs.1,09.12,410.00. 5. Subscqu,:ntly the aforesaid assessment was reopened under Section 147 ol the Act by issue of notice dated 31.01.1997 under Section 148 of the Act. 4 6 During the reassessment proceedings, assessing officer noted that in the original assessment proceedings, he had not talcn into

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

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

36 of 171 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. 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

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

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

36 of 171 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. 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