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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

132(9A) and the part of documents were sent, therefore, the very inception of the proceeding in its entirety appears to be under the control of the DDIT (Inv.). 18. In the cross objection filed by the assessee, the substantial question of law was framed by this Court on 17-9-2014 that whether the ITAT erred

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

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

132(9A) and the part of documents were sent, therefore, the very inception of the proceeding in its entirety appears to be under the control of the DDIT (Inv.). 18. In the cross objection filed by the assessee, the substantial question of law was framed by this Court on 17-9-2014 that whether the ITAT erred

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

132(9A) and the part of documents were sent, therefore, the very inception of the proceeding in its entirety appears to be under the control of the DDIT (Inv.). 18. In the cross objection filed by the assessee, the substantial question of law was framed by this Court on 17-9-2014 that whether the ITAT erred

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

132(9A) and the part of documents were sent, therefore, the very inception of the proceeding in its entirety appears to be under the control of the DDIT (Inv.). 18. In the cross objection filed by the assessee, the substantial question of law was framed by this Court on 17-9-2014 that whether the ITAT erred

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Atyam Suryanarayana

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani & The Hon’Ble Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj Date : 5Th February 2024. Appearance: Mr. Om Narayan Rai, Advocate Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate …For The Appellant. 1. Heard Sri Om Narayan Rai, Learned Senior Standing Counsel For The Appellant. None Appears For The Respondent Assessee. 2. Affidavit Of Service Filed Today By Learned Counsel For The Appellant, In Compliance Of The Orders Dated 17.02.2023 & 15.01.2024, Is Taken On Record. Service Of Notice Upon The Respondent Assessee Is Found To Be Sufficient. 3. This Appeal Was Admitted By Order Of This Court Dated 03.09.2010, On The Following Substantial Questions Of Law:- “I) Whether The Learned Tribunal Was Justified On The Facts & Circumstances Of This Case To Follow The Ratio Decided By The

132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1961’) was conducted in the business and residential premises of one Sri Praveen Kumar Agarwal on 27.7.2019. An order in the case of Praveen Kumar Agarwal was passed by the DCIT, Circle – 3, Kolkata under Section 158DC of the Act, 1961 for the block period

Commissioner of Income Tax- IT and TP vs. M/s. Louis Berger International Inc.,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

1) to Rule 3 is not applicable and transaction value is determined in terms of Rules 4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. 16.6. The proper officer can raise doubts as to the truth or accuracy Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s. Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

1) to Rule 3 is not applicable and transaction value is determined in terms of Rules 4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. 16.6. The proper officer can raise doubts as to the truth or accuracy Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S GOLDEN STAR FACILITIES AND SERVICES PVT LTD., HYD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 13 which provides for Rule making power of the Central Government in respect of minerals. Section 13 subsection (1) WP(C). 11249/2010 & other contd cases. -:88:- and Section 13 Sub-section (2) in so far as relevant in the present case are as follows: “13. Power of Central Government to make Rules in respect

The Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-1 vs. M/s. New River Software System Pvt Ltd.,

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

1,51,200/- which was expended on the foreign guests was added. 3. Apropos the appeals filed in 2015, a similar reassessment order was passed pursuant to the search proceedings under Section 132, whereby inter alia additions of various amounts were made under Section 68

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Adaptec [India] Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

1,51,200/- which was expended on the foreign guests was added. 3. Apropos the appeals filed in 2015, a similar reassessment order was passed pursuant to the search proceedings under Section 132, whereby inter alia additions of various amounts were made under Section 68

Sunil Kumar Ahuja vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

68,34 appeal befor who vide his assessee file dated 23.09.2 3. incorrect in assessee, wh the assessee. Section 153A search. The i that proceedi found during 4. has relied on Meeta Gutgu challenge bef 5. that additions additions had Private Limi which had m purchase of l ultimate bene o. 97 of 2023 er Section 153A (1

Commissioner of Income Tax -II vs. M/S Sri Ramanjaneya Poultry Farm Pvt., Ltd.,

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

132(5) of the Act to the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner under Section (11) thereof which remedy she did not avail. Considering the whole gravamen of the plaintiff in the suit and the law on the subject, we are of the opinion that the Subordinate Judge and the High Court were not correct in rejecting the contention

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

68 of 171 with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA + LA.AP. 256/2017 POJA .Apelant Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Sri Laxmi Narasimha Wines,

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

68 of 171 with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA + LA.AP. 256/2017 POJA .Apelant Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar

PENDURTHI CHANDRASEKHAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

The appeal is allowed and all the four substantial

1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, while confirming the addition of Rs.3,40,000/- as unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, is right in law in holding that there should be sufficient reasons for receiving gifts though it is from father

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Hycons Infrastructure (India) Ltd.

The appeals are dismissed

1. Iron and Steel 488 230 718 68 27 2. Copper 224 8 232 96 14 3. Aluminium Rods/Wires 50 18 68 74 33 4. Tyres 118 73 191 62 39 5. Cosmetics 170 33 203 84 53 6. Misc. Chemicals 266 28 294 90 31 7. Soap Detergent 117 73 190 64 47 8. Article of plastic

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

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

1 Bigha sold from village Kilokari for consideration of Rs. 2,07,500/-. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the learned Reference Court held that there was a possibility that the sale deed was executed at inflated prices to claim a higher compensation since it was a known fact that such schemes of acquisition become known to the residents

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

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

1 Bigha sold from village Kilokari for consideration of Rs. 2,07,500/-. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the learned Reference Court held that there was a possibility that the sale deed was executed at inflated prices to claim a higher compensation since it was a known fact that such schemes of acquisition become known to the residents