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

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

47 of 50 nature of execution for refunding the amount, it is not assessment or reassessment proceedings at all. Further, while processing a refund application, reassessment is not permitted nor conditions of exemption can be adjudicated and reassessment is permitted only under Section

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals with cases where the importer

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals with cases where the importer

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

47 of 66 particular proceeding. Section 3(2) has therefore advisedly limited the area of operation of any particular officer to certain local limits, and not unlimited throughout the State. The conferment of such power throughout the State is not therefore in consonance with Section 3(2) and is ultra vires the said provision. 35. A provision similar to Section

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1 vs. M/s. New River Software System Pvt Ltd.,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

47,897/- on unsecured loans was added under Section 68 of the Act and an amount of `1,51,200/- which was expended on the foreign guests was added. 3. Apropos the appeals filed in 2015, a similar reassessment

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Adaptec [India] Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

47,897/- on unsecured loans was added under Section 68 of the Act and an amount of `1,51,200/- which was expended on the foreign guests was added. 3. Apropos the appeals filed in 2015, a similar reassessment

The Agricultural Market Committee vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

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

reassessment proceedings by the AO u/s 148 read with Section 147 was bade in law. In that view of the matter, we hold that the assessment completed by the AO u/s 147/143 (3) in pursuance of such invalid initiation is also bad in law and the same is liable to be quashed. We order accordingly and allow the additional ground

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

47. Counsel for the appellant has argued that the arbitrator took into account various letters/ documents authored by O.P. Kapoor wherein he admitted the factum of Appellant being a partner in the firm. These letters were all of the period after the date of the dissolution deed dated 31.03.1992. The counsel further argued that Kapoor Sons

M/s. Kausalya Shelters Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

47 Signature Not Verified OMP(COMM) 274/2022 Page 57 of 76 (c) In case of termination by the Sub Lessor under this sub- clause 8A, the Sub Lessee shall be further liable to pay the total aggregate rent for the remainder portion of the unexpired Lock-in Period of the sub lease (hereinafter referred to as the 'Balance Rent

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

47. Promulgation of the Constitution 101st Amendment Act, 2016 had occurred on September 8, 2016. The Constitution 101st Amendment Act, 2016 had come into force on September 16, 2016. 48. During the pendency of the appeals and the stay petitions of the State, Supreme Court had pronounced Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) on November 11, 2016 holding that, compensatory tax theory

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

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

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

47 of 171 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. + LA.APP. 454/2010, CM APPL. 14079/2015 & 21034/2019 DAYA KISHAN DECD THR LRS & ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA

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

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

47 of 171 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. + LA.APP. 454/2010, CM APPL. 14079/2015 & 21034/2019 DAYA KISHAN DECD THR LRS & ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA

M/S.MALLIKARJUNA RICE INDUSTRIES vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

Section 147 of ite Act. ,rc finc.l thaq prior to Direct Tax Lari,s (funcndnrcnt) Act, 1987, rcopening could be dorre rLnclcr thc above two condirions and fullilLncnt of rhc s.ricl l [2002] 25$ trR I (FB) ' [20r01 320 rTR s61 (SC) 9 con litions irlone conferred jurisdiction on t n e fus 'ssinq Officer to make a back assessmr

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