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

143 , 144 shall, so far as may be, apply; (c) the Assessing Officer, on determination of the undisclosed income of the block period in accordance with this Chapter, shall pass an order of assessment and determine the tax payable by him on the basis of such assessment; (d) the assets seized under section 132 or requisitioned under section 132A shall

COMMR OF INCOME TAX [TDS], HYDERABAD vs. M/S JAYADARSHINI HOUSING PVT LTD., HYDERABAD

Appeals are hereby dismissed by

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

143(3) read with Section 147 on 31.12.2007. 12 This was carried in appeal by the assessee and was successful partially. The assessee being aggrieved by the finding recorded by the Appellate Commissioner that reopening being proper, filed further appeal before the Tribunal and the revenue being aggrieved by the grant of partial relief to the assessee by the Appellate

EVEREST ORGANICS LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF I.T., HYDERABAD

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

1) v. Judges Inquiry Committee25, (2011) 8 SCC 380 : held thus : 65. In G. Sarana (Dr.) v. University of Lucknow [(1976) 3 SCC 585 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 474] the Court referred to the judgments in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India [(1969) 2 SCC 262] , S. Parthasarathi v. State

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

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

1) v. Judges Inquiry Committee25, (2011) 8 SCC 380 : held thus : 65. In G. Sarana (Dr.) v. University of Lucknow [(1976) 3 SCC 585 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 474] the Court referred to the judgments in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India [(1969) 2 SCC 262] , S. Parthasarathi v. State

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1) v. Judges Inquiry Committee25, (2011) 8 SCC 380 : held thus : 65. In G. Sarana (Dr.) v. University of Lucknow [(1976) 3 SCC 585 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 474] the Court referred to the judgments in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India [(1969) 2 SCC 262] , S. Parthasarathi v. State

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

1) v. Judges Inquiry Committee25, (2011) 8 SCC 380 : held thus : 65. In G. Sarana (Dr.) v. University of Lucknow [(1976) 3 SCC 585 : 1976 SCC (L&S) 474] the Court referred to the judgments in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India [(1969) 2 SCC 262] , S. Parthasarathi v. State

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Kaveri Bar AND Restaurant,

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

1), KOLKATA & ORS. BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN Date : 15th June, 2022 Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Adv. …for the petitioner Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi, Asst. S.G. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …for the respondents The Court: Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. In this writ petition petitioner has challenged the impugned notice under Section

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

u/s 143(3), it was specifically pointed out and explained to the AO by the assessee that the reason for the heavy expenditure claimed under the head of legal expenses was that this expenses was in respect of Advocate fee and cost of Civil Suit filed in the High Court for possession and eviction against its tenant/OBC. This

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

u/s 12AA of the Act, hence its application is hereby rejected.” (3 of 11) [ITA-163/2012] 5. However, counsel for the respondent contended that the Commissioner itself in the order which came to be passed subsequently observed as stated hereinabove. 6. He has also relied upon the decision in case of CIT vs. Vijay Vargiya Vani Charitable Trust reported

The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. M/s. Meghadoot Drillers,

1) Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under Section 147, the Income Tax Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 139; and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly

Commissioner of Income Tax-VI vs. Shri Prem Singh

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Ms. Chandrani Das, Adv. Ms. Riti Basu, Adv.

1(Suppl.) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/25/2015 IA No:GA/1/2015 (Old No.:GA/534/2015) M/S. KUMAR TRADERS VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ITAT/26/2015 IA No:GA/1/2015 (Old No.:GA/537/2015) M/S. R. R. SONS TRADING VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-XVI, KOLKATA ITAT/28/2015 IA No:GA/1/2015 (Old No.:GA/532/2015

Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax-3 vs. M/s. Spectra Shares AND Scripes Pvt. Ltd.,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 10Th May, 2022. Appearance:- Ms. Chandrani Das, Adv. Ms. Riti Basu, Adv.

1(Suppl.) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/25/2015 IA No:GA/1/2015 (Old No.:GA/534/2015) M/S. KUMAR TRADERS VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ITAT/26/2015 IA No:GA/1/2015 (Old No.:GA/537/2015) M/S. R. R. SONS TRADING VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-XVI, KOLKATA ITAT/28/2015 IA No:GA/1/2015 (Old No.:GA/532/2015

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

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

u/s 80-lB of the Act in respect of any unit though entire profits were taken as eligible for such deduction; (b) The assessee‟s P & L account stated that unit-wise sale was allocated in the ratio of production cost and clearance made by each unit and further, in the Notes that various expenses have been allocated

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/S Foods Fats and Fertilisers Limited,

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

147 was bared by limitation and therefore the proceedings are void abinitio. 2.3 The Submissions that the notice was not served is also not acceptable because it is an admitted fact that the notice was served on the business premises of the assessee and therefore it is not acceptable that it was not in the knowledge of the appellant

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

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

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

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