The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. Akula Nageswara Rao

In the result, the orders passed by the Assessing

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

reassessment as the case may be." Section 40 of the Act was amended by an amending Act No.17 of 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2012 and the period of re- assessment was enlarged to 5

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

5,94,40,840=00 g) Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) on various grounds including the validity of reassessment proceedings. The CIT(A) after hearing the parties vide its order upheld the order passed by the AO under Section

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

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

5,94,40,840=00 g) Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) on various grounds including the validity of reassessment proceedings. The CIT(A) after hearing the parties vide its order upheld the order passed by the AO under Section

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5,94,40,840=00 g) Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) on various grounds including the validity of reassessment proceedings. The CIT(A) after hearing the parties vide its order upheld the order passed by the AO under Section

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

5,94,40,840=00 g) Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) on various grounds including the validity of reassessment proceedings. The CIT(A) after hearing the parties vide its order upheld the order passed by the AO under Section

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

5). (7) In computing the period of one year referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) or five years referred to in sub-section (4), the period during which there was any stay by an order of a court or tribunal in respect of payment of such duty or interest shall be excluded. (8) The proper officer shall

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 proceedings are not made for the benefit of appellant. It is seen from the various facts and statements that revised return was filed by the appellant on 30/11/2000 which was a valid return in view of section 139(5

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

Appeals are dismissed

section; (ii) thereafter,   interest   shall   be  calculated at the rate aforesaid on the  amount by which the tax so paid together  with the advance tax paid falls short of  Page 5 of 15 O/TAXAP/676/2006 JUDGMENT the assessed tax. (3) Where,   as   a   result   of   an   order   of  reassessment

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

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

5(b) and (c) read with Section 6 of the BR Act. In so far as the income earned from these deposits is concerned, Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act does not make any difference nor it is possible to read any such limitation having regard to the language of the said provision. Every income “attributable

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

5(b) and (c) read with Section 6 of the BR Act. In so far as the income earned from these deposits is concerned, Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act does not make any difference nor it is possible to read any such limitation having regard to the language of the said provision. Every income “attributable

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

5(b) and (c) read with Section 6 of the BR Act. In so far as the income earned from these deposits is concerned, Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act does not make any difference nor it is possible to read any such limitation having regard to the language of the said provision. Every income “attributable

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

5(b) and (c) read with Section 6 of the BR Act. In so far as the income earned from these deposits is concerned, Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act does not make any difference nor it is possible to read any such limitation having regard to the language of the said provision. Every income “attributable

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

5. It is the contention of Sri K.V.Aravind, learned Advocate for the revenue that Tribunal erred in holding that assessing Officer sought to initiate the re-assessment proceedings by mere change of opinion, without considering the fact that the 7 expenditure related to onsite development of computer software and same had not been examined in the original assessment

PROGREESIVE CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

5. Subscqu,:ntly the aforesaid assessment was reopened under Section 147 ol the Act by issue of notice dated 31.01.1997 under Section 148 of the Act. 4 6 During the reassessment

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

reassessment is permitted only under Section 17(3), (4) and (5) of the amended provisions. Further it was held that

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Kaveri Bar AND Restaurant,

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

5 in my considered view the impugned notices under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the proceedings under Section 147 of the Act are not sustainable in law and should be quashed for the reason that admittedly the impugned proceeding initiated under section 147 and notices issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which