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

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

5 ORDER SHEET WPO 575 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE THE TINPLATE COMPANY OF INDIA LTD Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

21 [(1924) 1 KB 256], KB (p. 259) 38 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 46. The classic case which falls for consideration before the English Courts was Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal22, In the aforesaid case Lord Cottenham presided over a previous case in which a canal company brought a case in equity against a land owner. Lord

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

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

21 [(1924) 1 KB 256], KB (p. 259) 38 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 46. The classic case which falls for consideration before the English Courts was Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal22, In the aforesaid case Lord Cottenham presided over a previous case in which a canal company brought a case in equity against a land owner. Lord

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

21 [(1924) 1 KB 256], KB (p. 259) 38 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 46. The classic case which falls for consideration before the English Courts was Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal22, In the aforesaid case Lord Cottenham presided over a previous case in which a canal company brought a case in equity against a land owner. Lord

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

21 [(1924) 1 KB 256], KB (p. 259) 38 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 46. The classic case which falls for consideration before the English Courts was Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal22, In the aforesaid case Lord Cottenham presided over a previous case in which a canal company brought a case in equity against a land owner. Lord

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

5 7. Counsel for the assessee, Mr. Sethi, argued that the appeal is bereft of merit, and the ITAT's order does not call for interference. It was argued that having regard to the structure and tenor of the statute, there was no occasion for declaring something that was likely to arise in the future, as “payable”. At the time

The Agricultural Market Committee vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

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

21, 22 & 23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Dated of decision: 10th July, 2012 + ITA 1325/2009 + ITA 525/2010 + ITA 1697/2010 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX III ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Puneet Gupta, Jr. Standing Counsel. Mr. Sanjeev Rajpal, Sr. Standing Counsel. versus SHONKH TECHNOLOGY LTD. ..... Respondent Through

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

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

reassessment” in Section 132B shall be construed as references to “block assessment” . (emphasis applied) 26. Photocopy of warrant of authorisation issued in Form 45 under Section 112(I) of Income Tax Rules, pursuant whereto search was conducted at Assessee's premises on 28.11.1996 was produced before Tribunal, which are quoted in para 11.2 of Tribunal's order and relevant extract

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

The appeal stands dismissed

u/s 271(1)(c) r.w 274 of the Income-tax Act for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars are initiated separately. (iv) The assessee has booked various expenses of contractual nature, vide order sheet entry dated 29.12.2009, the assessee was asked to show cause why the same should not disallowed u/s40a(ia). In response thereto the assessee has only filed

Rachit V Shah vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax-7

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

147) REPLY 148A(C) 08.06.2022 (ANNEXURE P-7 PAGE 148 TO 170) Extended period by which notice u/s 148 could be issued 08.06.2022 (08.06.2022 plus zero day) 148A(D) ORDER & 148 NOTICE UNDER NEW REGIME 26.07.2022 & 28.07.2022(ANNEXURE P-8 & P-9 PAGE 171 to 181 & 182/183) TIME BARRED OUTSIDE 08.06.2022 STATUS TIME BARRED AS PER ILLUSTRATION GIVEN IN RAJEEV

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

5 SCC 747 3 (2004) 10 SCC 627 4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

5 SCC 747 3 (2004) 10 SCC 627 4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

5 SCC 747 3 (2004) 10 SCC 627 4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

5 SCC 747 3 (2004) 10 SCC 627 4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

5 SCC 747 3 (2004) 10 SCC 627 4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land