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

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

Section 148 was issued on 30-3-1995 so the proceedings of assessment further would be barred after March, 1997. Therefore, as on today this Court cannot lift the bar of limitation by ordering de novo reassessment afresh. He would submit that the Tribunal having held the initiation of reassessment was valid is contradictory inasmuch as the original inception

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 148 was issued on 30-3-1995 so the proceedings of assessment further would be barred after March, 1997. Therefore, as on today this Court cannot lift the bar of limitation by ordering de novo reassessment afresh. He would submit that the Tribunal having held the initiation of reassessment was valid is contradictory inasmuch as the original inception

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

Section 148 was issued on 30-3-1995 so the proceedings of assessment further would be barred after March, 1997. Therefore, as on today this Court cannot lift the bar of limitation by ordering de novo reassessment afresh. He would submit that the Tribunal having held the initiation of reassessment was valid is contradictory inasmuch as the original inception

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 :-

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, 1961. He allowed the depreciation, treated the income from leasing under the head “business or profession” but rejected the claim of interest of Rs.60,50,250/- as deductible expenditure. Thus, the income was assessed as loss of Rs.1,38,92,820/-. The carrying forward of losses was not disputed. 6. Aggrieved with

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

92 (Ker) . (iii) Section 28 (11) would be applicable only in respect of short-levy or non-levy or erroneous refund arising on or after 8th April 2011. It is submitted that the new Section 28 substitutes the previous Section 28 of the Act with effect from 8th April 2011. Therefore, Section 28 (11) would also be taken to have

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt.Anitha Sanghi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

92,53,033/- as book profit under Section 115JA of the Act. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act resulting in refund of Rs.10,62,37,618/-. Thereafter a notice was issued under Section 143(2) of the Act. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 31.12.2002 inter alia held that since exempted dividend does

Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur vs. Agricultural Market Committee, Krosur

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

92,842/- was made on account of interest for all the years. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal. 6. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 13.11.2007 dismissed the appeal. The assessee thereupon approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by an order dated 04.01.2011 inter alia held that period of limitation for 8 initiating

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

92, on the basis of this principles laid down in section 14 of the partition act that the asset of the plot of the Kamal Cinema became the asset of the partnership firm and Shri O P Kapoor on becoming partner later on, is entitled to share in the same in accordance with his shareholding in the same

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

reassessment or collection of such tax, interest, late fee or penalty shall, for all purposes, be deemed to be and to have always been done or taken in accordance with law; (ii) no suit or other proceedings shall be maintained or continued in any court against the State Government or any person or other authority whatsoever for the refund

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

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

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, so passed by the learned sole Arbitrator, the respondent

M/s. Kausalya Shelters Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

92. He further submitted that the said judgment is inapplicable to the facts of the present case as the Tribunal had categorically held that the Digitally Signed By:DHARMENDER SINGH Signing Date:30.05.2023 18:35:47 Signature Not Verified OMP(COMM) 274/2022 Page 49 of 76 contention of the petitioner that the provision of „Balance Rent‟ was in the nature

Dr.D. Siva Sankara Rao-HUF vs. I.T.O. Ward-2, Eluru

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

92 CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT NO.1/UOI……………………...99 REJOINDER BY APPELLANT ………………………………………100 SUR-REJOINDER………………………………………………………103 THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT.............................................................103 ANALYSIS & FINDINGS………………………...................................108 The Appeals…..…………………………….........................................109 Village Khizrabad ………………………............................................110 Village Kilokari ….…..…………………….........................................111 Village Nangli Razapur…………………............................................114 Village Garhi Mendu……………………............................................117 The Award…………………………………………………………….119 The Reference Court Judgments…………………………………….120 The Additional Evidence..…………………........................................122 The Statute…………………………………………………………….134 Compensation awarded in Village Behlolpur Khadar & Jasola

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

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

92 CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT NO.1/UOI……………………...99 REJOINDER BY APPELLANT ………………………………………100 SUR-REJOINDER………………………………………………………103 THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT.............................................................103 ANALYSIS & FINDINGS………………………...................................108 The Appeals…..…………………………….........................................109 Village Khizrabad ………………………............................................110 Village Kilokari ….…..…………………….........................................111 Village Nangli Razapur…………………............................................114 Village Garhi Mendu……………………............................................117 The Award…………………………………………………………….119 The Reference Court Judgments…………………………………….120 The Additional Evidence..…………………........................................122 The Statute…………………………………………………………….134 Compensation awarded in Village Behlolpur Khadar & Jasola

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