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

55 of the 1922 Act which is the precursor of Section 256(1) of the Act. Ruling on the scope of the said provision, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court observed that, “when a question of law is neither raised before the Tribunal nor considered by it, will not be a question arising out of the order

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

55 of the 1922 Act which is the precursor of Section 256(1) of the Act. Ruling on the scope of the said provision, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court observed that, “when a question of law is neither raised before the Tribunal nor considered by it, will not be a question arising out of the order

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

55 of the 1922 Act which is the precursor of Section 256(1) of the Act. Ruling on the scope of the said provision, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court observed that, “when a question of law is neither raised before the Tribunal nor considered by it, will not be a question arising out of the order

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

2 of 2023 filed by the department at the time of hearing the revenue pleaded that the appeal has become infructuous as the original authority has passed the order dated 05.01.2023 but the department contested the legal issue of applicability of Section 154 of the Act. The Division Bench vide order dated 28.06.2023 held that the authority having accepted

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

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

55 VST 1, 'COMMISSIONER, DELHI VALUE ADDED TAX Vs. ABB LTD.' (2016) 91 VST 188 (SC), 'TATA ENGINEERING & LOCOMOTIVE CO. Vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX' (1970) 1 SCC 622, 'KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA' (1973) 32 STC 629 AND 'STATE OF A.P. Vs. COROMANDEL PAINTS AND CHEMICALS

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

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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

b) submission of the report to the settlement commission on the basis of the documents of seized material record for CBI. Summons to B.R: Jain, issued. 27. The aforesaid letter dated 20.03.95 which was written by DDIT (Inv.) to Mr. K.M. Verma, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (AO) in most indubitable way dictated him to initiate reassessment proceedings

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

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

b) submission of the report to the settlement commission on the basis of the documents of seized material record for CBI. Summons to B.R: Jain, issued. 27. The aforesaid letter dated 20.03.95 which was written by DDIT (Inv.) to Mr. K.M. Verma, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (AO) in most indubitable way dictated him to initiate reassessment proceedings

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

b) submission of the report to the settlement commission on the basis of the documents of seized material record for CBI. Summons to B.R: Jain, issued. 27. The aforesaid letter dated 20.03.95 which was written by DDIT (Inv.) to Mr. K.M. Verma, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (AO) in most indubitable way dictated him to initiate reassessment proceedings

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

b) submission of the report to the settlement commission on the basis of the documents of seized material record for CBI. Summons to B.R: Jain, issued. 27. The aforesaid letter dated 20.03.95 which was written by DDIT (Inv.) to Mr. K.M. Verma, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (AO) in most indubitable way dictated him to initiate reassessment proceedings

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

55. Jindal Stainless Ltd (supra) has answered the reference in paragraph 1159 as follows: – “1159. By majority the Court answers the reference in the following terms: 1159.1. Taxes simpliciter are not within the contemplation of Part XIII of the Constitution of India. The word “free” used in Article 301 does not mean “free from taxation”. 35 1159.2. Only such taxes

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

The appeal is allowed

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

b) On the ground specified in clause (d) of sub-section (1) shall be entertained unless the Court is satisfied: 2026:JHHC:1680-DB 21 (i) that the petitioner was at the time of the marriage ignorant of the facts alleged; (ii) that proceedings have been instituted in the case of a marriage solemnised before the commencement of this

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

55 of 76 104. So, he concluded that the assessment qua the provision of „Balance Rent‟ being characterised to be a genuine pre-estimate of damages suffered by the respondent was made arbitrarily without considering the above stated factors and in utter disregard to the crucial material available on record. As such, the arbitrarily concluded finding that the „Balance Rent

PR COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

reassessment proceedings. The assessees resisted the move to assess them, contending that they were not subjected to income tax laws of India as they had no permanent establishment. The AO by order dated 31.12.2008 held that the appellant has a fixed place PE and DAPE in India. Further, the AO also deemed 10% of the value of supplies made

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s. Meghadoot Drillers,

55,998/- made on account of bogus payment of commission of sale of scrap on the basis of remand report even when the Assessing Officer verified part payment of commission and the balance amount remained unverifiable? 8. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1