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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

41. Therefore, the ITAT has erred in upholding initiation of reassessment proceedings under Sections 147/148 of the IT Act. Consequently

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

41. Therefore, the ITAT has erred in upholding initiation of reassessment proceedings under Sections 147/148 of the IT Act. Consequently

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals with cases where the importer

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals with cases where the importer

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

41 (Ker) 20 (2011) 11 GSTR 321 (SC) CUSTA NO. 14 OF 2025 REPORTABLE Page 20 of 50 under Section 11B(1) of the Act and not on the expiry of the said period from the date on which the order of refund is made. It is submitted that in the instant case the application for refund under Section

The Commissioner of Income Tax -V, vs. M/S Secunderabad Club

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

reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections

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

Commissioner of Income Tax - III vs. Cyber Towers

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the judgment/award dated 10.02.2014, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / IV Addl. District Judge, Haridwar, in M.A.C.T. case no. 66 of 2011, Aadesh Agarwal Vs Manpal Singh and others, whereby said Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,39,000/- to the claimants to be paid by insurance company

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

41. It is submitted by the Respondents that a combined reading of Explanation 2 to Section 28 of the Act and the retrospective amendment brought about by Validation Act, 2011 would reveal that all the past cases where the SCN had been issued under Section 28 of the Act by any officer appointed as officer of Customs, prior

The Prl Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Institute of Development and Research in Banking Technology

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

41,782/-. It was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) and subsequently, taken up for scrutiny under Section 143(3) of the Act. On November 16, 2011, the Assessing Officer passed his order under Section 143(3) of the Act. 6. Subsequently, the AO4 reopened the assessment for the year

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

The appeal is allowed

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

Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The Trial Court, vide order dated 28.03.2014, directed the respondent-husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the appellant-wife and Rs. 6,000/- per month to the minor son, along with Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation costs. The Trial Court, vide order dated 10.01.2016, dismissed the matrimonial

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s.Viskha Container Terminal Private Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

41(1)of the Act. The amalgamation of the two companies was effected under the order of the High Court in proceedings under Section 391 read with Section 394 of the Companies Act. The Saraswati Industrial Syndicate, the trans free Company was a subsidiary of the Indian Sugar Company, namely, the transferor Company. Under the scheme of amalgamation the Indian

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

41 Naduvil and Others (supra), Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla Another (supra), Deep Chand (supra) and Lakshmi & Others (supra) do not assist the assessees since, final pronouncement on the legality, validity and vires of the Entry Tax Act, 2012 was yet to be pronounced finally by the Appeal Court where, the issue of vires was still open. It is trite law that

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s Transport Corporation of India

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

Section 264 of the Act 1961. In the said revision, the petitioner/Assessee has raised a ground that in making addition to Rs.57,41,353/- to the total income of the assessee for alleged shortage of stock found at the time of survey by Central Excise Authority is unjust and bad in law and at the most GP, if any, could

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

Section 166 on fault-liability principle reveals that the compensation received in the former in the present times cannot qualify, by any stretch of reasoning, as “just” compensation. 32. It has been noted ad nauseam in judgments after judgments that the approach of the tribunals and courts in determining the amount of compensation which is “just” has not only been

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

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

41 of 171 and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 595/2009 & CM APPL. 14010/2015 PREM RAJ & ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman Sinha, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar

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

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

41 of 171 and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 595/2009 & CM APPL. 14010/2015 PREM RAJ & ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. Mr. Prashant Katara and Mr. Aman Sinha, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar