The Commissioner of Income Tax - III, vs. M/s. Suven Pharmaceuticals Limited,

Appeals are dismissed

147 [or section 153A] on the  amount by which the tax on the total income  determined on the basis of the 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

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

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 Commissioner

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 of A.P. [(1974) 3

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 of A.P. [(1974) 3

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 of A.P. [(1974) 3

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 of A.P. [(1974) 3

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

u/s 148 of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case? (3) Whether the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the appellant is not entitled to make additional claim of loss incurred of Rs.8,28,65,052/- in the re- assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

The Agricultural Market Committee vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

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

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 by the said

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

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

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

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

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3. Counsel for the appellant contended that in the original order which came to be passed it has been admitted on page 23 that notice was served on Radhe Shyam Nagar on 14th March, 2000 and that date was not known to the assessee. The same fact was also admitted by the CIT(A) observing as under:- “2.3. The submissions

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

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