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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

reassessment on the dictates/directions of the superior authority. The ITAT in its judgment has arrived to the finding considering various material available on record that the AO has passed the order against the assessee on the dictates of his superiors. 56. Learned counsel for the Revenue though argued that since the matter regarding the Jain dairy was pending before

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

reassessment on the dictates/directions of the superior authority. The ITAT in its judgment has arrived to the finding considering various material available on record that the AO has passed the order against the assessee on the dictates of his superiors. 56. Learned counsel for the Revenue though argued that since the matter regarding the Jain dairy was pending before

The Commissioner of Income Tax -V, vs. M/S Secunderabad Club

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

reassessment notice issued by the respondent assessee for AY 2003-04 and 2005-06 (both of which had been settled during regular proceedings as scrutiny assessments) was issued. The notice for AY 2003-04 observed that the return was filed, disclosing an income at ₹26,93,63,940/-; it had claimed deduction under Section

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 :-

63,33,221/- as deductible expenditure was rejected under Section 43B of the Act, 1961. However, the assessing officer accepted the income from leasing of the hotel as income under the head “profits and gains from business and profession” and allowed depreciation restricting it to 50% of the claimed amount i.e. 50% of Rs.1,14,95,443/- on the ground

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

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

Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, vs. M/s. Madras Chakkar Beedi Factory Pvt.Ltd.,

The appeal is disposed of

reassessment made protectively under Section 147 for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1997-98 by holding them as infructuous without going into the merits of the case when the issues with reference to unexplained cash credits of Rs.50 Lakhs and Rs.65,10,000/- have been found to be unexplained? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was correct in 3 applying

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

reassessment” even if it is taken that because the power of assessment under Section 17 has been mentioned there should have been a „deemed assignment of that power. Clearly, such power of assessment has to be in relation to a territorial or pecuniary jurisdictional limit. The scope of the Validation Act 54. In this context a brief discussion of what

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

63. Since this is an appeal under Section 37(1) of the Act, the Court should first consider the scope of the Court‟s power under Section 34. The leading case which explains the Court‟s role at Section 37 stage is Associated Builders v Delhi Development Authority [2015 (3) SCC 49]. The court had revisited and considered several previous

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, vs. M/S Sigachi Laboratories Ltd.,

The appeals are allowed in the above terms

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

reassessment of the proceedings under the said provision was not satisfied? 2. The necessary facts in this case are that the assessee (M/s Jindal GTA 1/2005, 2/2006 & 3/2007 Page 2 of 4 Equipment Leasing & Consultancy Services Ltd) held shares in Jindal Strips Limited (JSL). Similarly, Stainless Investments Ltd. and Mansarovar Investment Ltd (the appellants in GTA 2/2006 and GTA 3/2007

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

63. In view of the discussions above, respectfully, we answer the first issue by setting aside the impugned judgement and order dated June 24, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge. 64. While delivering the impugned judgement and order dated June 24, 2013, learned Single Judge had granted stay of the same for a period of 6 weeks. Within

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

reassessment proceedings, the order of the assessing officer was reversed, and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) referred the matter to the High Court under Section 66(1) of the 1922 Act. The Revenue argued that moneys laid out in deposit in other banks stand apart and, therefore, do not get the benefit of exemption. Repelling the submission, the unanimous

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

reassessment proceedings, the order of the assessing officer was reversed, and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) referred the matter to the High Court under Section 66(1) of the 1922 Act. The Revenue argued that moneys laid out in deposit in other banks stand apart and, therefore, do not get the benefit of exemption. Repelling the submission, the unanimous

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

reassessment proceedings, the order of the assessing officer was reversed, and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) referred the matter to the High Court under Section 66(1) of the 1922 Act. The Revenue argued that moneys laid out in deposit in other banks stand apart and, therefore, do not get the benefit of exemption. Repelling the submission, the unanimous

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

reassessment proceedings, the order of the assessing officer was reversed, and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) referred the matter to the High Court under Section 66(1) of the 1922 Act. The Revenue argued that moneys laid out in deposit in other banks stand apart and, therefore, do not get the benefit of exemption. Repelling the submission, the unanimous

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

63 of 171 UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....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. Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA + LA.APP. 426/2015 NATHU (DECEASED) THR LRS .....Appellant Through