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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

51. (b) in the case of any other goods, on the date of payment of duty.] (2) The provisions of this section shall not apply to baggage and goods exported by post.‖ 22. The principal provision with which we are concerned is Section 17 and which relates to ‗assessment of duty‘. Section 17 reads as follows: ―17. Assessment of duty

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

51. (b) in the case of any other goods, on the date of payment of duty.] (2) The provisions of this section shall not apply to baggage and goods exported by post.‖ 22. The principal provision with which we are concerned is Section 17 and which relates to ‗assessment of duty‘. Section 17 reads as follows: ―17. Assessment of duty

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

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

Section 27 and if the law laid down in ITC is applied to the respondent’s case, it has to be held that the refund got crystalized in favour of the respondent only on and after the order-in- original dated 05.09.2023 by which the assessment of the shipping bills was reassessed/ modified. Therefore, the Tribunal fell in error

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

51,435 transactions. It is also noteworthy that on the basis of intercompany purchase agreement, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes initiated suo motu proceeding and issued a notice dated 15.07.2011 24 to the petitioner and after considering the provisions of intercompany purchase agreement, passed an order on 19.07.2011, by which view taken by the ACAR was affirmed. The Assessing Authority

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

51. It was urged by Mr. Dubey that while Section 28(11) talks of the officers who are competent to deal with the questions of the powers of assessment under Section 17, Explanation 2 to Section 28 did not. It W.P. (C) 441/2013 & connected matters Page 39 of 66 merely talks about the subject matter namely non-levy, short levy

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

51. By section 5 of the West Bengal Finance Act, 2017, sections 4 (5) (b) and (c) of the Entry Tax Act, 2012 have been amended. By the amendments introduced, retrospective effect from April 1, 2012 have been given to the meaning of the expression “taxable turnover of imports” as appearing in 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

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

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

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. Smt P Sujana

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

51 YEARS ...APPELLANT (BY SMT.JINITA CHATTERJEE, ADV. FOR SRI S.PARTHASARATHI, ADV.) AND : THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 10(1), UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE-560027 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 27.02.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.351/BANG/2014

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

51. Sh. Harish Malhotra, learned senior counsel submitted that the firm Kapoor Sons and Co. was constituted by late Sh. O.P. Kapoor, deceased father of the appellant in 1966, when the appellant was only a young boy. It was admitted even in the award as well as in the impugned judgment, that it is only his father (O.P. Kapoor

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Kumar Raja Associates

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

reassessment proceeding is not possible till a fresh assessment of the set aside case has been completed. This is so because, so long as assessment, as per appellate direction, or otherwise, is pending, the AO cannot have any reason to believe that income for the year has escaped assessment. Income cannot be said to have escaped assessment within the meaning

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

51 of 171 Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Ms. Lucy Lalrentlaungi, Advocates for DDA + LA.APP. 1070/2010, CM APPL. 14080/2015, 37746-47/2022 RAM KISHAN DECD THRU LRS & ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UOI & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar