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 :-

set of facts since there was no original assessment proceeding and no assessment order, therefore, the question of reassessment does not arise. The orders passed by the assessing officer were the assessment orders passed on original and revised return and claims made by the assessee during the assessment proceedings and, as such, the interest paid to financial institutions/banks being

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS TO THE EXTENT AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'C' BENCH, BENGALURU IN ITA NO.1372/BANG/2014 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 29.02.2016. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income

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

loss of amenity constitute a conventional sum which is taken to be the sum which society deems fair, fairness being interpreted by the courts in the light of previous decisions. Thus there has been evolved a set of conventional principles providing a provisional guide to the comparative severity of different injuries, and indicating a bracket of damages into which

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

loss of an assessee in any order of assessment or reassessment and the said order contains a direction for initiation of penalty proceedings under clause (c) of sub Section (1), such an order of assessment or reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of the assessing officer for initiation of the penalty proceedings under the said clause (c).” This provision

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

Bench: N.TUKARAMJI,UJJAL BHUYAN

loss or damage. The Court also held the person claiming liquidated damages is still to prove that because of the legal injury, Digitally Signed By:DHARMENDER SINGH Signing Date:30.05.2023 18:35:47 Signature Not Verified OMP(COMM) 274/2022 Page 61 of 76 he has suffered some loss. The Court held, he may also be called upon to show that

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

reassessment by preferring appeals before the first appellate authority. It has consequently proceeded to set aside the order of the first appellate authority dated 26 April 2019 and allowed the appeals that were preferred by the respondents. 6. The facts of CUSAA 126/2022 proceed along similar lines. The appellant in that appeal had filed 8 BoE between 8 February

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

reassessment by preferring appeals before the first appellate authority. It has consequently proceeded to set aside the order of the first appellate authority dated 26 April 2019 and allowed the appeals that were preferred by the respondents. 6. The facts of CUSAA 126/2022 proceed along similar lines. The appellant in that appeal had filed 8 BoE between 8 February

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, vs. Mars TelecomSystems (P) Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

loss, deduction, allowance or relief in the return; (d) where a person is found to have any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India. Explanation 3.—For the purpose of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue

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

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 herein had filed an application before

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

The Agricultural Market Committee vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

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

loss of `1,50,16,040/-. The Assessing Officer proceeded to consider the merits and by order dated 30.06.2006, assessed the income at `2,36,09,600/-. The Assessing Officer had also initiated penalty proceeding and passed an adverse order. The assessee carried the matter in appeal to the CIT (Appeals) who affirmed the assessment order on 15.10.2008. Aggrieved

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, vs. M/S Sigachi Laboratories Ltd.,

The appeals are allowed in the above terms

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

reassessment of the proceedings under the said provision was not satisfied? 2. The necessary facts in this case are that the assessee (M/s Jindal GTA 1/2005, 2/2006 & 3/2007 Page 2 of 4 Equipment Leasing & Consultancy Services Ltd) held shares in Jindal Strips Limited (JSL). Similarly, Stainless Investments Ltd. and Mansarovar Investment Ltd (the appellants in GTA 2/2006 and GTA 3/2007

PR COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

reassessment proceedings. The assessees resisted the move to assess them, contending that they were not subjected to income tax laws of India as they had no permanent establishment. The AO by order dated 31.12.2008 held that the appellant has a fixed place PE and DAPE in India. Further, the AO also deemed 10% of the value of supplies made

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

reassessment is to be made. Where the reason for reopening is other than “collusion or any wilful mis- W.P. (C) 441/2013 & connected matters Page 24 of 66 statement or suppression of facts” reopening has to be done within one year from the „relevant date‟. Where it falls within the categories demarcated in terms of Section 28 (4) as amended

Smt.Sudia Indira vs. The Income Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal from order stand dismissed

set   out   in   the   agreement.     The   first   important   condition   is  condition No.3.   The said condition No.3 makes it clear that the time  limit of the Banakhat i.e. contract of sale was fixed for four months.  Similarly, condition No.4 makes it clear that the payment of sale price  Page 11 of 21 C/AO/442/2012 CAV JUDGEMNT was not dependent on handing over

THE COMMISSIONER OF I.T.-I, HYDERABAD. vs. M/S. AKASH CABLE TV NETWORK PVT.LTD., HYDERABAD.

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

reassessment proceedings were initiated after information was received from Director of Investigation regarding bogus/accommodation entries allegedly provided by different companies which were managed and operated by Mukesh Gupta and Rajan Jassal. The Assessing Officer noticed that these companies had been issued shares by the appellant-assessee. A question arose whether the share application money received was a genuine transaction