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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

reassessment on the dictates/directions of the superior authority. The ITAT in its judgment has arrived to the finding considering various material available on record that the AO has passed the order against the assessee on the dictates of his superiors. 56. Learned counsel for the Revenue though argued that since the matter regarding the Jain dairy was pending before

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

reassessment on the dictates/directions of the superior authority. The ITAT in its judgment has arrived to the finding considering various material available on record that the AO has passed the order against the assessee on the dictates of his superiors. 56. Learned counsel for the Revenue though argued that since the matter regarding the Jain dairy was pending before

The Agricultural Market Committee vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

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

JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (ORAL) Admit. 1. The following substantial question of law arises in these batch of appeals: - “2.2 Whether learned ITAT erred in quashing the Assessment under section 147/143 (3) and holding that such initiation was invalid?” 2. With the consent of counsel the appeals were heard for final disposal. 3. The assessee, Shonkh Technology

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S Sri Krishna Drugs Ltd.,

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. The present appeals by the revenue are directed against a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 5th April, 2005 in seven appeals (by the revenue) and cross objections preferred by the assessee. The following questions of law were framed for consideration of this Court: (i) Whether the ITAT was, in the facts

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. The present statutory appeals, under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) are directed against the order dated 27.01.2017 (hereafter “impugned order”) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter “ITAT”) in ITA No. 67/DEL/2011 for the AY 2001-2002 whereby the ITAT held that the GE Energy Parts Inc. (hereafter

The Commissioner of Income Tax -III vs. Sri T.C. Reddy

The appeal stands dismissed

JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Judgment 04/09/2017 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the department and cross objection of the assessee was partly allowed for statistical purposes. 2. This court while admitting the appeal on 19.10.2011 framed following substantial question of law:- “i. Whether

The Commissioner of Income Tax -V, vs. M/S Secunderabad Club

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

JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT % 1. In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the assessee has questioned orders issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) W.P.(C) 422/2006, 2794/2008, 2795/2008 & 8177/2008 Page 2 of 10 proposing to re-open completed assessments for previous years. For AY 2000-01 (which is the subject matter of W.P.(C) 422/2006

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. Moschip Semiconductor Technology Ltd.,

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 11/09/2017 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee. 2. This Court while admitting the matter framed the following substantial question of law:- “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified

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

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

reassessment of market value using a fair and just approach. Learned Counsel clarifies that they are seeking compensation based on actual usage and future potentiality of the acquired land. It is submitted that if the land is capable of being used for building purposes in the near future, its valuation must reflect such capability. Reliance is placed on Clause

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

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

reassessment of market value using a fair and just approach. Learned Counsel clarifies that they are seeking compensation based on actual usage and future potentiality of the acquired land. It is submitted that if the land is capable of being used for building purposes in the near future, its valuation must reflect such capability. Reliance is placed on Clause

Pinna Nageswara RAo, vs. Commissioner of Income tax, IV (A.P)

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

nature and quality of lands is by and large similar to the notified land there should be no interference with respect to the amount of compensation to be awarded. Further reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash (D) by LRs & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr3 and Delhi Development Authority

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX-7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S SRI VENKATESWARA PADMAVATHI COMPAY, KHAMMAM DIST

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

nature and quality of lands is by and large similar to the notified land there should be no interference with respect to the amount of compensation to be awarded. Further reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash (D) by LRs & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr3 and Delhi Development Authority

Kuchipudi Krishna Kishore vs. THE DCIT, CIR-2[1],

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

nature and quality of lands is by and large similar to the notified land there should be no interference with respect to the amount of compensation to be awarded. Further reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash (D) by LRs & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr3 and Delhi Development Authority

Commissioner of Income Tax -II, vs. M/S Kasila Farms Ltd.,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

nature and quality of lands is by and large similar to the notified land there should be no interference with respect to the amount of compensation to be awarded. Further reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash (D) by LRs & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr3 and Delhi Development Authority

THE PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. L. SURYAKANTHAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

nature and quality of lands is by and large similar to the notified land there should be no interference with respect to the amount of compensation to be awarded. Further reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash (D) by LRs & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr3 and Delhi Development Authority

Commissionr of Income TAx-3 vs. M/s State Bank of Hyderabad

Bench: ANIS,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

nature and quality of lands is by and large similar to the notified land there should be no interference with respect to the amount of compensation to be awarded. Further reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash (D) by LRs & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr3 and Delhi Development Authority

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.NCC - KNR JV

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

nature and quality of lands is by and large similar to the notified land there should be no interference with respect to the amount of compensation to be awarded. Further reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash (D) by LRs & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr3 and Delhi Development Authority

The Pr. Commissioner of Incometax-4 vs. Smt. S. Uma Devi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

nature and quality of lands is by and large similar to the notified land there should be no interference with respect to the amount of compensation to be awarded. Further reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash (D) by LRs & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr3 and Delhi Development Authority