CHENNAKESAVA PHARMACEUTICALS VIJAYAWADA vs. THE COMI.OF INCOMETAX VIJ.

In the result, all the appeals are allowed setting aside the common

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

7 supra) wherein it was held that when the assessment officer had not recorded till the conclusion of assessment proceedings his satisfaction that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, it is a jurisdictional defect which cannot be cured and therefore, the initiation of penalty proceedings

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

1)(a)(ii) of the KVAT Act. However, insofar as it relates to Telecommunication equipment, the same requires to be notified by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under the KVAT Act and the State Government has been issuing Notifications specifying the products which would be treated as IT products;  Notification No. FD 43 CSL 07(02) dated

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

7) In computing the period of one year referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) or five years referred to in sub-section (4), the period during which there was any stay by an order of a court or tribunal in respect of payment of such duty or interest shall be excluded. (8) The proper officer shall, after

The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. Smt P Sujana

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

reassessment under Section 147, not a case for rectification wherein the tax liability has been enhanced. 6. Learned counsel for the revenue justifying the orders of the authorities submitted that Section 80 of the Act provides for submission of return for losses. In terms of the said Section, it is mandatory that the return for losses has to be filed

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

1. This appeal has been filed by the Customs Department under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act) challenging the order passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in Customs Appeal No. 76391 of 2024 filed by the respondent herein dated 07.01.2024. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions

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

The appeal is allowed

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

7. Provisions for food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attendance and treatment, etc. of the applicant. 8. Payment capacity of the non-applicant. 9. Some guesswork is not ruled out while estimating the income of the non-applicant when all the sources or correct sources are not disclosed. 10. The non- applicant to defray the cost of litigation. 11. The amount

The Commissioner of Income Tax - III, vs. M/s. Suven Pharmaceuticals Limited,

Appeals are dismissed

reassessment  or recomputation exceeds the tax on the total  income determined [under sub­section (1) of  section 143 or] on the basis of the regular  assessment aforesaid. (4) Where,   as   a   result   of   an   order   under  section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or  section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or  section 263 or 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 :-

reassessment is not made for the benefit of assessee. In fact in this case, time for issuing notice under section 143(2) was available with the Assessing Officer after filing the revised return but instead of that he has issued notice under section 148. Therefore, I find force behind the arguments of the appellant that the appellant should not 7

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

reassess the duty leviable on such goods. 5. The scope of Section 17(4) and the exercise which is liable to be undertaken by the proper officer must also be appreciated in the backdrop of Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 which reads as follows:- "RULE 12. Rejection of declared value. - 1

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

reassess the duty leviable on such goods. 5. The scope of Section 17(4) and the exercise which is liable to be undertaken by the proper officer must also be appreciated in the backdrop of Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 which reads as follows:- "RULE 12. Rejection of declared value. - 1

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

7. It is also pointed out that Assessing Officer has examined only 0.11% of the entire transactions pertaining to sale in the course of import i.e. 60 out of 51,435 transactions and therefore, the basis of the finding recorded by the Assessing Officer that he has examined voluminous transaction to unearth different factual matrixes is factually incorrect

The Director of Income Tax, (Exemptions) vs. Royal Education Society

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

1) of the Act cannot be treated as an order of assessment. In the instant case, admittedly, no original assessment was made in case of the assessee. The assessee has made a claim in the return filed in response to a notice under Section 148 of the Act. 7. In V.JAGAN MOHAN RAO supra, a three judge bench

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

7] and CIT v Nawanshahar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd[8]. Maintainability of appeal Before taking up the core issue, we would address the question of maintainability. Section 260A of the Act was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 with effect from 01.10.1998. Sections 256, 257, 260 and 261 were also amended to provide an appeal to the High Court

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

7] and CIT v Nawanshahar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd[8]. Maintainability of appeal Before taking up the core issue, we would address the question of maintainability. Section 260A of the Act was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 with effect from 01.10.1998. Sections 256, 257, 260 and 261 were also amended to provide an appeal to the High Court

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

7] and CIT v Nawanshahar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd[8]. Maintainability of appeal Before taking up the core issue, we would address the question of maintainability. Section 260A of the Act was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 with effect from 01.10.1998. Sections 256, 257, 260 and 261 were also amended to provide an appeal to the High Court

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

7] and CIT v Nawanshahar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd[8]. Maintainability of appeal Before taking up the core issue, we would address the question of maintainability. Section 260A of the Act was inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 with effect from 01.10.1998. Sections 256, 257, 260 and 261 were also amended to provide an appeal to the High Court

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

7 of 2005 1. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Assessment) Special Range Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant Versus 1. Surendra Kumar Jain (Dead) Through Legal Heirs 1) Smt. Poonam Jain (Wife) W/o Lt. S.K. Jain, Aged About 70 Years R/o House No. B-5, Maharani Bagh, Sriniwaspuri S.O. South Delhi, New Delhi- 65 2) Ms. Geetika Jain (Daughter

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

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

7 of 2005 1. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Assessment) Special Range Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant Versus 1. Surendra Kumar Jain (Dead) Through Legal Heirs 1) Smt. Poonam Jain (Wife) W/o Lt. S.K. Jain, Aged About 70 Years R/o House No. B-5, Maharani Bagh, Sriniwaspuri S.O. South Delhi, New Delhi- 65 2) Ms. Geetika Jain (Daughter

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

7 of 2005 1. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Assessment) Special Range Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant Versus 1. Surendra Kumar Jain (Dead) Through Legal Heirs 1) Smt. Poonam Jain (Wife) W/o Lt. S.K. Jain, Aged About 70 Years R/o House No. B-5, Maharani Bagh, Sriniwaspuri S.O. South Delhi, New Delhi- 65 2) Ms. Geetika Jain (Daughter