SYED ABBAS MIAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-I,KURNOOL

43 (b) turnover of imports relating to entry of specified goods into a local area, have been purchased in the same form against a tax invoice, or invoice, or bill issued under the West Bengal Value Added Tax Act, 2003, or the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994, by a dealer registered under the West Bengal Value Added

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

5. The Commissioner appears, in our judgment, to have wholly misapprehended the true character of the jurisdiction with which he is by the Act entrusted and has surrendered his judgment to the directions of the Board of Revenue. The order sheet of the Commissioner (at pp. 10-36 of the printed Paper-Book) bears eloquent testimony to the manner

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

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

5. The Commissioner appears, in our judgment, to have wholly misapprehended the true character of the jurisdiction with which he is by the Act entrusted and has surrendered his judgment to the directions of the Board of Revenue. The order sheet of the Commissioner (at pp. 10-36 of the printed Paper-Book) bears eloquent testimony to the manner

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5. The Commissioner appears, in our judgment, to have wholly misapprehended the true character of the jurisdiction with which he is by the Act entrusted and has surrendered his judgment to the directions of the Board of Revenue. The order sheet of the Commissioner (at pp. 10-36 of the printed Paper-Book) bears eloquent testimony to the manner

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

5. The Commissioner appears, in our judgment, to have wholly misapprehended the true character of the jurisdiction with which he is by the Act entrusted and has surrendered his judgment to the directions of the Board of Revenue. The order sheet of the Commissioner (at pp. 10-36 of the printed Paper-Book) bears eloquent testimony to the manner

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

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

The appeal is allowed

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

43. It needs to refer herein that under the Hindu Law, a marriage is not a contract but sacrament. The Hindu Marriage Act has no doubt made an inroad into the close preserve of the ancient Hindu Law strongly suggesting the marriage as sacrament and not contract which still goes strong. The fraud contemplated by Section 12 of the said

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

The Director of Income Tax, (Exemptions) vs. Royal Education Society

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

43,782/-. (b) additional loss claimed on sale of securities - Rs.8,28,65,052/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 31.07.2014 partly allowed the appeal. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). The tribunal

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s. Meghadoot Drillers,

5. Whether the order of the Tribunal is perverse in holding that the purchases made from three parties are genuine ignoring the clinching evidence brought on record that such parties do not exist at the given address and the alleged purchases are not found recorded in RG 23A Part I and other relevant registers verified by the Central Excise Authorities

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

PR COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

reassessment proceedings. The assessees resisted the move to assess them, contending that they were not subjected to income tax laws of India as they had no permanent establishment. The AO by order dated 31.12.2008 held that the appellant has a fixed place PE and DAPE in India. Further, the AO also deemed 10% of the value of supplies made

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

Smt.Sudia Indira vs. The Income Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal from order stand dismissed

5,000/­ (as against the total consideration  of Rs. 60,000/­) the plaintiff did nothing until he issued the  suit notice 2 1/2 years after the agreement. Indeed, we are  inclined to think that the rigor of the rule evolved by Courts  that time is not of the essence of the contract in the case of  immovable properties evolved

M/s. PLL-Suncon Joint Venture vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

5 SCC 705, the court laid out the applicable principles: "31. Therefore, in our view, the phrase "public policy of India" used in Section 34 in context is required to be given a wider meaning. It can be stated that the concept of public policy connotes some matter which concerns public good and the public interest. What is for public

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

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

43 of 171 and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta, Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 101/2010, CM APPL. 14013/2015 RATTO DEVI DECD THR LRS & ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing

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

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

43 of 171 and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kartik Jindal, Ms. Palak Gupta, Ms. Supriya Udey, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 101/2010, CM APPL. 14013/2015 RATTO DEVI DECD THR LRS & ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

5 SCC 747 3 (2004) 10 SCC 627 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