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 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, the end result would be same as the bias would exist. Decision of reassessment, reassessment

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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, the end result would be same as the bias would exist. Decision of reassessment, reassessment

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

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, the end result would be same as the bias would exist. Decision of reassessment, reassessment

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-4 vs. Sri. Krishna Chigullapally

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

72(2) OF THE KVAT ACT 2003, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR FROM APRIL 2014 TO MARCH 2015. IN STRP NO. 24 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (APPEALS-4) 2ND FLOOR, TTMC 'B' BLOCK BMTC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU-560 027. 2. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER (AUDIT-4.3), DVO-4 VTK-2, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU

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

reassessment or assessment in favour of such officers who issued such SCNs since they were not „proper officers‟ for the purposes of Section 2(34) of the Act and further because Explanation 2 to Section 28 as presently enacted makes it explicit that such non-levy, short-levy or erroneous refund prior to 8th April 2011 would continue

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

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

The appeal is allowed

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

Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The Trial Court, vide order dated 28.03.2014, directed the respondent-husband to pay maintenance of Rs. 8,000/- per month to the appellant-wife and Rs. 6,000/- per month to the minor son, along with Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation costs. The Trial Court, vide order dated 10.01.2016, dismissed the matrimonial

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

72. Authorities that have been cited at the bar namely, Ujjam Bai (supra), M.K. Kunhikannan Nambiar Manjeri Manikoth, 41 Naduvil and Others (supra), Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla Another (supra), Deep Chand (supra) and Lakshmi & Others (supra) do not assist the assessees since, final pronouncement on the legality, validity and vires of the Entry Tax Act, 2012 was yet to be pronounced

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax - Central vs. Shri. Isanaka Mastan Reddy

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

72 of 2023  Mm Wonder Park Private Limited. (A Company Registered Under The Companies Act Having Its Registered Office At Village-Bakhtara, Godhi Road Tehsil- Arang, District - Raipur - 492101, Chhattisgarh) Through Its Director Shri Mayur Thourani Aged About 32 Year's, Son Of Inder Lal Thourani Resident Of Mm Niwas, 6 Bunglow, Godriwala City, Baba Gelaram, Nagar, Opposite Godriwala Dham

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

72 of 171 RAGHUBAR DAYAL @ RAGHBAR SINGH & ORS...Respondents Through: Ms. Kamna Singh, Advocate for DDA. + LA.APP. 49/2019, CM APPL. 16601/2019, CM APPL.16603- 04/2019 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

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

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

72 of 171 RAGHUBAR DAYAL @ RAGHBAR SINGH & ORS...Respondents Through: Ms. Kamna Singh, Advocate for DDA. + LA.APP. 49/2019, CM APPL. 16601/2019, CM APPL.16603- 04/2019 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

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Kalyani Wines

In the result, I find this appeal bereft of merit and accordingly,

Bench: Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Robin Phukan

72,649 B Escalation Rs.28,92,193 Rs.28,92,193 C Compensation for damages and loss of breach of contract Rs,10,00,000 Nil D Cost of Arbitration Nil E Interest 21% per annum 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the application till payment Then being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the arbitral award

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