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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3) of the IT Act would purport that where any books of account, other documents or assets have been delivered to the requisitioning officer, the provisions of sub-sections (4-A) to (14) (both inclusive) of Section 132 and Section 132B shall, so far as may be, apply as if such books of account, other documents or assets had been

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

3) of the IT Act would purport that where any books of account, other documents or assets have been delivered to the requisitioning officer, the provisions of sub-sections (4-A) to (14) (both inclusive) of Section 132 and Section 132B shall, so far as may be, apply as if such books of account, other documents or assets had been

The Commissioner of Income Tax - III, vs. M/s. Suven Pharmaceuticals Limited,

Appeals are dismissed

reassessment  or recomputation exceeds the tax on the total  income determined [under sub­section (1) of  section 143 or] on the basis of the regular  assessment aforesaid. (4) Where,   as   a   result   of   an   order   under  section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or  section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or  section 263 or section

COMMR OF INCOME TAX [TDS], HYDERABAD vs. M/S JAYADARSHINI HOUSING PVT LTD., HYDERABAD

Appeals are hereby dismissed by

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

3) read with Section 147 on 31.12.2007. 12 This was carried in appeal by the assessee and was successful partially. The assessee being aggrieved by the finding recorded by the Appellate Commissioner that reopening being proper, filed further appeal before the Tribunal and the revenue being aggrieved by the grant of partial relief to the assessee by the Appellate Commissioner

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

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

reassessment of damages. This is what was the theme of discourse in Santosh Devi (supra) and in a later decision in Puttamma (supra). In Puttamma (supra), the Supreme Court called upon the State to explain inaction on its part in the context of authorization given to the Central Government by Section 163-A (3) to make improvements on account

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

3 SCC 609, it was submitted that the use of the definite article „the‟ is very significant as opposed to „an‟ or „any‟. Only those officers who have been assigned the functions of „the proper officer‟ for the purposes of Section 17 (Assessment of bill of entry) will be considered as „the‟ proper officer for Section

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

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

3 of 10 7. The assessee incorrectly claimed chapter VI-A deductions on income which included income from other sources i.e. interest income amounting to Rs. 1,73,09,453/- instead of restricting the deduction to the extent of income from the profits and gains of business as has been prescribed in the provisions of section 80AB. This action

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. (2) The provisions of clauses (b) and (c) of sub-rule (1), sub-rule (2) and sub-rule (3), of Rule 4 shall, mutatis mutandis, also apply in respect of similar goods.‖ 27. In terms of Rule 6, if the value of imported goods is found to be indeterminable in accordance with Rules

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. (2) The provisions of clauses (b) and (c) of sub-rule (1), sub-rule (2) and sub-rule (3), of Rule 4 shall, mutatis mutandis, also apply in respect of similar goods.‖ 27. In terms of Rule 6, if the value of imported goods is found to be indeterminable in accordance with Rules

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

3 (SC) 17 (1987) 32 ELT 388 (Kol) 18 (2015) 318 ELT 379 (Kol) CUSTA NO. 14 OF 2025 REPORTABLE Page 19 of 50 retained by the revenue and the same cannot be considered to be “duty” and thus the limitation prescribed in Section 27 of the Act/Section 11B of the Central Excise Act cannot be made applicable. With

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

3) 9 STRP NO. 08 OF 2022 AND CONNECTED MATTERS 45 jurisdiction under Section 29 of the Act because in the case on hand as far as Nokia was concerned, the phone charger was sold as a separate accessory and, therefore, Apex Court held that it is not part of mobile phone. The battery was supplied with mobile phone

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

45(3)(a) of the Societies Act, a cooperative society shall transfer not less than 25% of net profit to the reserve fund and in case the total amount transferred becomes equal to the amount of paid up capital, the amount to be transferred can be reduced to a sum not less than 10% of such profits. For doing

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

45(3)(a) of the Societies Act, a cooperative society shall transfer not less than 25% of net profit to the reserve fund and in case the total amount transferred becomes equal to the amount of paid up capital, the amount to be transferred can be reduced to a sum not less than 10% of such profits. For doing

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

45(3)(a) of the Societies Act, a cooperative society shall transfer not less than 25% of net profit to the reserve fund and in case the total amount transferred becomes equal to the amount of paid up capital, the amount to be transferred can be reduced to a sum not less than 10% of such profits. For doing

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

45(3)(a) of the Societies Act, a cooperative society shall transfer not less than 25% of net profit to the reserve fund and in case the total amount transferred becomes equal to the amount of paid up capital, the amount to be transferred can be reduced to a sum not less than 10% of such profits. For doing

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Moschip Semiconductor Technology Ltd.,

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

reassessment proceedings, simply to verify the contents of the return, unlike before it was vested in him in making regular assessment. It was found that the time-limit available for issuance of notice and making assessment under Section 143(3) had expired, but then, on that count, he cannot assume the jurisdiction by venturing to make assessment under Section

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

The appeal is allowed

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

45. Further the appellant/husband has contended that issue of cruelty has not been appreciated by the learned Family Court in proper manner rather the cruelty has been caused by the petitioner/appellant/wife upon him. 46. In the aforesaid context it needs to refer herein that the “cruelty” has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case