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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

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

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

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

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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

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

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

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

42. A distinction is sought to be drawn between the specific functions of a Customs Officer under Section 6 of the Act and the power to appoint an officer of the Customs under Section 4 of the Act. It is submitted that the functions under Section 6 of the Act are totally different from assigning the power of issuing

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

reassessing the shipping bills a communication was issued by the department dated 17.08.2023 calling upon the respondent to submit all connected documents and the respondent in response submitted the required documents and immediately thereafter the adjudicating authority sanctioned the refund on 05.09.2023 and the same was paid to the respondent on 06.09.2023 and therefore, the question of payment of interests

Commissioner of Income Tax-III., vs. Smt. Chirala Nivedita Reddy

reassessment proceedings. 5. Furthermore the CIT(Appeals) and the ITAT considered elaborately on the merits of the addition and held that the effort of the assessing officer ITA 575/2012 Page 4 to bring such amounts to tax was not justified. The ITAT pertinently noticed as under : “The formation of such belief exhibiting the escapement of income or the reasons should

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Andhra Bank Employees Co.Operative Bank Limited

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

42 of the RBI Act and cash reserve required to be maintained under Section 18 of the BR Act, every banking company shall maintain not less than 25% or such other percentage as prescribed by the RBI, in cash or gold valued at a price not exceeding the current market price or in unencumbered approved securities. This, in banking parlance

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. The Agrasen Coop. Urban Bank Ltd.,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

42 of the RBI Act and cash reserve required to be maintained under Section 18 of the BR Act, every banking company shall maintain not less than 25% or such other percentage as prescribed by the RBI, in cash or gold valued at a price not exceeding the current market price or in unencumbered approved securities. This, in banking parlance

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/s. The A.P.Vardhaman(Mahila)Cooperative Urban

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

42 of the RBI Act and cash reserve required to be maintained under Section 18 of the BR Act, every banking company shall maintain not less than 25% or such other percentage as prescribed by the RBI, in cash or gold valued at a price not exceeding the current market price or in unencumbered approved securities. This, in banking parlance

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S The A.P.Mahesh Coop. Urban Bank Ltd,

In the result, for the above reasons, these appeals fail and

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

42 of the RBI Act and cash reserve required to be maintained under Section 18 of the BR Act, every banking company shall maintain not less than 25% or such other percentage as prescribed by the RBI, in cash or gold valued at a price not exceeding the current market price or in unencumbered approved securities. This, in banking parlance

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

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. Smt P Sujana

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

42,417/- as against Rs.39,12,24,944/-, the loss claimed for the year 2004- 05 of Rs.5,23,18,280/- was not allowable as the return filed for the said year was belated. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (Appeals) – V, Bangalore, inter alia - 5 - contending that there was a delay

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

42 West Bengal Finance Act, 2017 to the Entry Tax Act, 2012 are invalid simply on the basis that, the Entry Tax Act, 2012 stood obliterated on the expiry of 6 weeks from the date of the impugned judgement and order. 74. State legislature by the West Bengal Finance Act, 2017 had amended the Indian Stamp

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/s Devi Sea Foods Ltd.,

42 years, R/o 1391 A, Sct. 29, Faridabad, India. ----Appellant/Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary Finance, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Ist Floor, Main Building, Government Secretariat, Jaipur 302005. 2. Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Department Having Its Address At, Kar Bhawan, Bhagwandas Road, Ambedkar Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur Rajasthan- 302005. 3. The Commercial Tax Officer, Anti-Evasion

The Pr. Commissioner of Income -Tax-6 vs. M/s. B.Surendra Chowdary

42 years, R/o 1391 A, Sct. 29, Faridabad, India. ----Appellant/Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary Finance, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Ist Floor, Main Building, Government Secretariat, Jaipur 302005. 2. Commissioner Commercial Taxes, Department Having Its Address At, Kar Bhawan, Bhagwandas Road, Ambedkar Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur Rajasthan- 302005. 3. The Commercial Tax Officer, Anti-Evasion