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

5(c) lays down that … No officer, employee or agent engaged in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions for any agent in any case shall, in that or a factually related case, participate or advise in the decision… This provision provides for the functional separation as against the structural separation within the same agency body, and is subject

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

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

5(c) lays down that … No officer, employee or agent engaged in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions for any agent in any case shall, in that or a factually related case, participate or advise in the decision… This provision provides for the functional separation as against the structural separation within the same agency body, and is subject

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5(c) lays down that … No officer, employee or agent engaged in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions for any agent in any case shall, in that or a factually related case, participate or advise in the decision… This provision provides for the functional separation as against the structural separation within the same agency body, and is subject

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

5(c) lays down that … No officer, employee or agent engaged in the performance of investigative or prosecuting functions for any agent in any case shall, in that or a factually related case, participate or advise in the decision… This provision provides for the functional separation as against the structural separation within the same agency body, and is subject

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 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

The Agricultural Market Committee vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

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

reassessment proceedings by the AO u/s 148 read with Section 147 was bade in law. In that view of the matter, we hold that the assessment completed by the AO u/s 147/143 (3) in pursuance of such invalid initiation is also bad in law and the same is liable to be quashed. We order accordingly and allow the additional ground

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

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 as if the notice were a notice issued

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

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-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.

147, read with Section 143(3), were put to challenge by the appellants before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – Central II, Kolkata [CIT(A)] and all the appeals were dismissed. Challenging the same the assessees preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the factual position noted that before the CIT(A) the assessee had raised the three

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.

147, read with Section 143(3), were put to challenge by the appellants before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – Central II, Kolkata [CIT(A)] and all the appeals were dismissed. Challenging the same the assessees preferred appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after considering the factual position noted that before the CIT(A) the assessee had raised the three

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

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Kumar Raja Associates

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5. However, we have gone through the order of the CIT(A) as well as the Tribunal. The Tribunal in para 2.5 observed as under:- “2.5. We have considered the arguments advanced by the parties in view of orders of the lower authorities and the decisions relied upon by the Ld. AR. The proviso to sub-section (2A) to section

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

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