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

b) in a case where duty is provisionally assessed under section 18, the date of adjustment of duty after the final assessment thereof; (c) in a case where duty or interest has been erroneously refunded, the date of refund; (d) in any other case, the date of payment of duty or interest. Explanation 2. - For the removal of doubts

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

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

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

41 of 137 (c) Substitute values shall not be established under the provisions of clause (b) of this sub-rule. (4) If the value cannot be determined under the provisions of sub- rule (1), the value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially through Rules 4 to 9.‖ 26. Rules 4 and 5 prescribe the procedure for the determination

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

41 of 137 (c) Substitute values shall not be established under the provisions of clause (b) of this sub-rule. (4) If the value cannot be determined under the provisions of sub- rule (1), the value shall be determined by proceeding sequentially through Rules 4 to 9.‖ 26. Rules 4 and 5 prescribe the procedure for the determination

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

The appeal is allowed

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

b) On the ground specified in clause (d) of sub-section (1) shall be entertained unless the Court is satisfied: 2026:JHHC:1680-DB 21 (i) that the petitioner was at the time of the marriage ignorant of the facts alleged; (ii) that proceedings have been instituted in the case of a marriage solemnised before the commencement of this

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

b) submission of the report to the settlement commission on the basis of the documents of seized material record for CBI. Summons to B.R: Jain, issued. 27. The aforesaid letter dated 20.03.95 which was written by DDIT (Inv.) to Mr. K.M. Verma, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (AO) in most indubitable way dictated him to initiate reassessment proceedings

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

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

b) submission of the report to the settlement commission on the basis of the documents of seized material record for CBI. Summons to B.R: Jain, issued. 27. The aforesaid letter dated 20.03.95 which was written by DDIT (Inv.) to Mr. K.M. Verma, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (AO) in most indubitable way dictated him to initiate reassessment proceedings

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

b) submission of the report to the settlement commission on the basis of the documents of seized material record for CBI. Summons to B.R: Jain, issued. 27. The aforesaid letter dated 20.03.95 which was written by DDIT (Inv.) to Mr. K.M. Verma, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (AO) in most indubitable way dictated him to initiate reassessment proceedings

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

b) submission of the report to the settlement commission on the basis of the documents of seized material record for CBI. Summons to B.R: Jain, issued. 27. The aforesaid letter dated 20.03.95 which was written by DDIT (Inv.) to Mr. K.M. Verma, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (AO) in most indubitable way dictated him to initiate reassessment proceedings

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

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

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

Commissionr of Income TAx-3 vs. M/s State Bank of Hyderabad

Bench: ANIS,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

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