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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

70. Thus, the tribunal has rightly concluded that the AO has passed the order of reassessment on the dictates of the higher authorities sitting at Delhi and Jabalpur. 71. Once having held that the reassessment started at the dictation of the higher authorities and thereafter, during reassessment process too continuous instructions were imparted and even the AO obtained instructions, therefore

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

70. Thus, the tribunal has rightly concluded that the AO has passed the order of reassessment on the dictates of the higher authorities sitting at Delhi and Jabalpur. 71. Once having held that the reassessment started at the dictation of the higher authorities and thereafter, during reassessment process too continuous instructions were imparted and even the AO obtained instructions, therefore

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-III., vs. Smt. Chirala Nivedita Reddy

reassessment proceedings. 5. Furthermore the CIT(Appeals) and the ITAT considered elaborately on the merits of the addition and held that the effort of the assessing officer ITA 575/2012 Page 4 to bring such amounts to tax was not justified. The ITAT pertinently noticed as under : “The formation of such belief exhibiting the escapement of income or the reasons should

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

70,670/- and made following additions: (a) disallowance of contributions made to funds -Rs.10,86,43,782/-. (b) additional loss claimed on sale of securities - Rs.8,28,65,052/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 31.07.2014 partly allowed the appeal. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before

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

70,219/- (g) Unexplained investment in house property No. 133/225 Rs. 3,40,000/- 16. Assessee preferred appeal against aforesaid order of assessment which has been partly allowed by Tribunal vide impugned judgment. Both parties have filed respective appeals to the extent order of Tribunal is against them. 17. Tribunal has considered various issues of Assessee and returned findings

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Hyderabad House Pvt Ltd.,

70 been raised before the Supreme Court, while holding that “deviation from the structured formula as provided in the Second Schedule is not ordinarily permissible” even when “compensation is payable under Section 166 read with Section 168 of the Act”, the court ruled that the notional income mentioned in the second schedule and the multiplier specified therein “can form

The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central) vs. M/s.Madhu Enterprises

Bench: The Learned

70,87,301/-. The Assessee also claimed a deduction of ₹90 crores under Section 54F of the Act asserting that the consideration received from the sale of shares of FIITJEE Ltd. — an unlisted company, the gains from which would otherwise be chargeable to tax as capital gains — was invested in acquiring a residential house property bearing the address

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

70. Pijush Kanti Chowdhury (supra) has held that, passing of an interim order staying the operation of a judgement, does not mean that, the existence of the judgement is wiped out. 71. Applying the principles of Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) and Pijush Kanti Chowdhury (supra) in the facts of the present case, the interim order passed by the appeal

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/s Devi Sea Foods Ltd.,

reassessment orders passed, on the basis of such notice in some of the cases, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.-(2014) 16 SCC 410. Some of the petitioners filed reply to the show cause notice and agitated those very arguments, which have been raised before this Court

The Pr. Commissioner of Income -Tax-6 vs. M/s. B.Surendra Chowdary

reassessment orders passed, on the basis of such notice in some of the cases, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.-(2014) 16 SCC 410. Some of the petitioners filed reply to the show cause notice and agitated those very arguments, which have been raised before this Court

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K.V.Ram Kumar

reassessment orders passed, on the basis of such notice in some of the cases, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.-(2014) 16 SCC 410. Some of the petitioners filed reply to the show cause notice and agitated those very arguments, which have been raised before this 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

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