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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

v. ITO and Ors. MANU/SC/0297/1981 : [1981]130ITR1(SC) . In Lakhmani Mewaldas's case (supra), it has been held, that the reasons, which led to the formation of the belief, contemplated by Section 147(a), must have a material belief on the question of escapement of income of the assessee from assessment and does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction

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

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

36,600, after enhancing the compensation for disfigurement, diet, attendant and conveyance, loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, and pain and suffering. Further, an interest of 9% per annum was imposed. In reducing the amount awarded for loss of future prospects, the High Court noticed this court’s judgments in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi

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

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Kalyani Wines

In the result, I find this appeal bereft of merit and accordingly,

Bench: Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Robin Phukan

reassessing the materials before the Arbitral Tribunal and substituting its view/opinion. xiii) The finding recorded by the learned Court to the effect that the respondent contractor had failed to complete the jobs within the stipulated period in terms of the contract and hence on the prayer of the respondent contractor time was extended by the applicant for completion is perverse

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

reassessments of damages at certain key points in the pattern where the disability is readily identifiable and not subject to large variations in individual cases.” MAC App. Nos. 554/2010 & conn. Page 27 of 70 36. The Supreme Court observed in R.K. Malik (supra), thus : 22. It is extremely difficult to quantify the non- pecuniary compensation

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

v. Bal Ram & Anr2 to submit that if the nature and quality of lands is by and large similar to the notified land there should be no interference with respect to the amount of compensation to be awarded. Further reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash (D) by LRs & Ors. v

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

v. Bal Ram & Anr2 to submit that if the nature and quality of lands is by and large similar to the notified land there should be no interference with respect to the amount of compensation to be awarded. Further reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash (D) by LRs & Ors. v