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

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

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-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

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, 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 :-

67,61,657/- which included interest of Rs.3,63,33,221/- actually paid by the assessee during the previous year 1998-99 as per OTS which was not claimed in earlier years. The depreciation was computed at Rs.1,14,95,443/- as per Income Tax Rules. The total loss carried forward was Rs.12,54,21,003/-. The depreciation was claimed

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

67. The words 'this Section' in the newly inserted sub-section (11) of Section 28 obviously refers to Section 28 as enacted with effect from 8th April 2011 and not the Section 28 which existed prior to that date. The effect of Section 28(11) is to treat all officers of the Customs to be „proper officers‟ only

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 Prl Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Institute of Development and Research in Banking Technology

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

67,000/- and Rs.79,12,000/- under Section 40(a) of the Act. Assessee has submitted its detailed reply on October 5, 2011. The AO has noticed the said reply in the assessment order. However, the AO has disallowed deduction and added back the amount on the ground that it was 'inadvertently' allowed by the AO without verifying the reversal

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

reassessing or reappreciating the evidence. An award can be challenged only under the grounds mentioned in Section 34 (2) of the Act. The Arbitral Tribunal has examined the facts and held that both the second respondent and the appellant are liable. The case as put forward by the first respondent has been accepted. Even the minority view was that

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

67. The Division Bench while passing the interim order on July 31, 2012 obviously considered the Entry Tax Act, 2012 to be valid as the validity of the Entry Tax Act, 2012 was in issue in the appeals. It did not pronounce the Entry Tax Act, 2012 to be invalid at any point of time prior to the date

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

67 of 171 Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav Kumar, Advocates for DDA + LA.APP. 292/2016 & CM APPL. 37754/2018 HARI KISHAN SHARMA & ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents

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

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

67 of 171 Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Mrinalini Sen, Standing Counsel with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DDA Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav Kumar, Advocates for DDA + LA.APP. 292/2016 & CM APPL. 37754/2018 HARI KISHAN SHARMA & ORS .....Appellants Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....Respondents

The Commissioner of Income Tax -III vs. Sri T.C. Reddy

The appeal stands dismissed

67,000/- in the hands of M/s Mrigiya Electronics Inds. Pvt. Ltd. Further, disallowance of said sum in the hands of the assessee is not justified. 21. "The total consideration paid by the assessee company to acquire 134.3 bighas of land as per the submission of AR is Rs. 119527000/- which includes Rs.75967000/- paid to M/s Mrigiya Electronics Inds

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

The appeal is allowed

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

67. It is settled proposition of law that when a marriage is deemed a dead wood situation, Courts may consider it a valid reason to grant a divorce, recognizing that forcing a couple to remain in such a relationship only prolongs their suffering and no purpose will be served in sailing the dead wood. 68. The Hon'ble Apex Court

Pinna Nageswara RAo, vs. Commissioner of Income tax, IV (A.P)

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX-7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S SRI VENKATESWARA PADMAVATHI COMPAY, KHAMMAM DIST

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires