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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

46 or section 50 and the self-assessment of goods referred to in sub section (1) and for this purpose, examine or test any imported goods or export goods or such part thereof as may be necessary: PROVIDED that the selection of cases lor verification shall primarily be on the basis of risk evaluation through appropriate selection criteria

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

46 or section 50 and the self-assessment of goods referred to in sub section (1) and for this purpose, examine or test any imported goods or export goods or such part thereof as may be necessary: PROVIDED that the selection of cases lor verification shall primarily be on the basis of risk evaluation through appropriate selection criteria

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

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

46. Section 28 (11) of the Act opens with a non-obstante clause which overrides 'anything to the contrary contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court' but does not override any other provisions of the Act or any other Act for the time being in force. In other words Section 28 (11) neither explicitly or implicitly seeks

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

1) (as it stood then) are attracted. Therefore, the theory as propounded by the respondent that the assessment made at the first instance was a provisional assessment is outrightly rejected. 32. We are also prompted to examine as to what would fall within the scope of Section 154 of the Act which deals with correction/clerical errors etc. Section 154 states

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

The appeal is allowed

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

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 of Dr. N.G. Dastane vs. Mrs. S. Dastana, (1975) 2 SCC 326 wherein it has been laid down that the Court has to enquire, as to whether, the conduct charge as cruelty, is of such

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Dr. T.Ravi Kumar,

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 10Th April, 2024. Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay Bhowmick, Advocate Ms. Swapna Das, Advocate … For The Appellant. Ms. Smita Das De, Advocate … For The Respondent. 1. Heard Sri J. P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Advocate Assisted By Sri Sanjay Bhowmick, Learned Counsel For The Appellant/Assessee & Ms. Smita Das De, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Respondent. 2. The Assessment Years Involved In The Present Appeal Are Assessment Year 1999-2000 & Assessment Year 2000-01. By Order Dated 16.08.2012, This Appeal Was Admitted On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law :-

reassessment is not made for the benefit of assessee. In fact in this case, time for issuing notice under section 143(2) was available with the Assessing Officer after filing the revised return but instead of that he has issued notice under section 148. Therefore, I find force behind the arguments of the appellant that the appellant should

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

1)(n) of the BR Act, the doing of all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the promotion or advancement of the business of the company. Thus reading of Sections 5(b), (c) and Section 6 of the BR Act along with Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act, it becomes clear that the income received

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

1)(n) of the BR Act, the doing of all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the promotion or advancement of the business of the company. Thus reading of Sections 5(b), (c) and Section 6 of the BR Act along with Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act, it becomes clear that the income received

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

1)(n) of the BR Act, the doing of all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the promotion or advancement of the business of the company. Thus reading of Sections 5(b), (c) and Section 6 of the BR Act along with Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act, it becomes clear that the income received

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

1)(n) of the BR Act, the doing of all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the promotion or advancement of the business of the company. Thus reading of Sections 5(b), (c) and Section 6 of the BR Act along with Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act, it becomes clear that the income received

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. Now next coming to the substantial questions of law which were admitted for hearing at the instance of Revenue

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. Now next coming to the substantial questions of law which were admitted for hearing at the instance of Revenue

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. Now next coming to the substantial questions of law which were admitted for hearing at the instance of Revenue

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. Now next coming to the substantial questions of law which were admitted for hearing at the instance of Revenue

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

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

46 of 171 versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 316/2010 & CM APPL. 14062/2015 RAMESH DECD THR LRS & ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta

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

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

46 of 171 versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Divakar Kapil, Advocates for UOI. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA. + LA.APP. 316/2010 & CM APPL. 14062/2015 RAMESH DECD THR LRS & ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta

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