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

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

69,02,210=00 1992-93 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

69,02,210=00 1992-93 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,

69,02,210=00 1992-93 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- 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 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

reassessment order was passed pursuant to the search proceedings under Section 132, whereby inter alia additions of various amounts were made under Section 68 of the Act for Assessment Years (AYs) 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. These amounts were primarily towards share application money received from various companies. The AO made additions/disallowance

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Adaptec [India] Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

reassessment order was passed pursuant to the search proceedings under Section 132, whereby inter alia additions of various amounts were made under Section 68 of the Act for Assessment Years (AYs) 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. These amounts were primarily towards share application money received from various companies. The AO made additions/disallowance

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

reassessed the shipping bills and as such the order of the Learned Tribunal cannot be sustained in law? CUSTA NO. 14 OF 2025 REPORTABLE Page 3 of 50 B. Whether the Learned Tribunal has gone beyond its jurisdiction to award interest @12% p.a w.e.f 11.01.2011 till 5/6.09.2023 when admittedly the amount of excess duty to be refunded to the respondent

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-4 vs. Sri. Krishna Chigullapally

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

69 of the KVAT Act, rectifying the order by dropping estimated turnover as per the return and books of accounts. The JCCT(A)5 dismissed assessee’s appeal. On further appeal, KAT, by the impugned order, has allowed assessee’s appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the Revenue has preferred these petitions. 2 ‘KVAT Act’ for short 3 Assessing Officer 4 Assessment Year

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

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

69. Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. (supra) has considered the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 and held that, when the High Court passes an interim order staying the operation of the order of the Appellate Authority exercising powers under the provisions of the Act of 1985, the same does not revive the appeal which had been

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

69,336/-. This was claimed as deduction being interest from the business of banking. Out of this, an amount of Rs.6,95,66,643/- was disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior approval in respect of investments against statutory reserves as required under Section 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies

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

69,336/-. This was claimed as deduction being interest from the business of banking. Out of this, an amount of Rs.6,95,66,643/- was disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior approval in respect of investments against statutory reserves as required under Section 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies

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

69,336/-. This was claimed as deduction being interest from the business of banking. Out of this, an amount of Rs.6,95,66,643/- was disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior approval in respect of investments against statutory reserves as required under Section 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies

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

69,336/-. This was claimed as deduction being interest from the business of banking. Out of this, an amount of Rs.6,95,66,643/- was disallowed by the assessing officer on the ground that the assessee did not obtain prior approval in respect of investments against statutory reserves as required under Section 46 of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies

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

69 of 171 Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishnav Kumar, Advocates for DDA + LA.APP. 131/2018 UNION OF INDIA .....Appellant 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. Siddharth Panda, Mr. Ritank and Mr. Anil Pandey, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Kunal Sharma