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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

41. Therefore, the ITAT has erred in upholding initiation of reassessment proceedings under Sections 147/148 of the IT Act. Consequently, the answer to this question is given in favour of assessee to hold the decision of AO to reassess the assessee was not independent but was at the instance of superior officer. 42. Now next coming to the substantial questions

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

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

41. Therefore, the ITAT has erred in upholding initiation of reassessment proceedings under Sections 147/148 of the IT Act. Consequently, the answer to this question is given in favour of assessee to hold the decision of AO to reassess the assessee was not independent but was at the instance of superior officer. 42. Now next coming to the substantial questions

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, the answer to this question is given in favour of assessee to hold the decision of AO to reassess the assessee was not independent but was at the instance of superior officer. 42. Now next coming to the substantial questions

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, the answer to this question is given in favour of assessee to hold the decision of AO to reassess the assessee was not independent but was at the instance of superior officer. 42. Now next coming to the substantial questions

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

41 Compact Disc and Information Technology products as given hereunder – 6. Transmission apparatus other than apparatus for radio or TV broadcasting: (g) Cellular telephone” 9. In Nokia India Case, the Apex Court has held that: “19. in view of the aforesaid facts, we find that the Assessing Authority, Appellate Authority and the Tribunal rightly held that the mobile/cellphone charger

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

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

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

reassessment of market value using a fair and just approach. Learned Counsel clarifies that they are seeking compensation based on actual usage and future potentiality of the acquired land. It is submitted that if the land is capable of being used for building purposes in the near future, its valuation must reflect such capability. Reliance is placed on Clause (4

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

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

reassessment of market value using a fair and just approach. Learned Counsel clarifies that they are seeking compensation based on actual usage and future potentiality of the acquired land. It is submitted that if the land is capable of being used for building purposes in the near future, its valuation must reflect such capability. Reliance is placed on Clause (4

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land of posh colonies such as Maharani Bagh, Kalindi Colony

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land of posh colonies such as Maharani Bagh, Kalindi Colony

Kuchipudi Krishna Kishore vs. THE DCIT, CIR-2[1],

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land of posh colonies such as Maharani Bagh, Kalindi Colony

Commissioner of Income Tax -II, vs. M/S Kasila Farms Ltd.,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land of posh colonies such as Maharani Bagh, Kalindi Colony

THE PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. L. SURYAKANTHAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land of posh colonies such as Maharani Bagh, Kalindi Colony

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

Bench: ANIS,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land of posh colonies such as Maharani Bagh, Kalindi Colony

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.NCC - KNR JV

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land of posh colonies such as Maharani Bagh, Kalindi Colony

The Pr. Commissioner of Incometax-4 vs. Smt. S. Uma Devi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land of posh colonies such as Maharani Bagh, Kalindi Colony