THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

37(1) towards illegal mining. 387,76,69,992/- 4. Aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal against the additions made hereinabove, which came to be allowed. 5. It is stated in the appeal that during the assessment proceedings, it was observed that, M/s GLA Trading International Pvt. Ltd, is an ‘associated enterprise

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - of residential accommodation provided to the employees by valuing the same as if employees were employees of Central Government, accepted the same. The assessees’ obligation under Section 192 was held to be properly discharged, quashing the proceedings under Section 201[1] and 201[1A] of the Act. Though this order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - of residential accommodation provided to the employees by valuing the same as if employees were employees of Central Government, accepted the same. The assessees’ obligation under Section 192 was held to be properly discharged, quashing the proceedings under Section 201[1] and 201[1A] of the Act. Though this order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - of residential accommodation provided to the employees by valuing the same as if employees were employees of Central Government, accepted the same. The assessees’ obligation under Section 192 was held to be properly discharged, quashing the proceedings under Section 201[1] and 201[1A] of the Act. Though this order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - of residential accommodation provided to the employees by valuing the same as if employees were employees of Central Government, accepted the same. The assessees’ obligation under Section 192 was held to be properly discharged, quashing the proceedings under Section 201[1] and 201[1A] of the Act. Though this order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - of residential accommodation provided to the employees by valuing the same as if employees were employees of Central Government, accepted the same. The assessees’ obligation under Section 192 was held to be properly discharged, quashing the proceedings under Section 201[1] and 201[1A] of the Act. Though this order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - of residential accommodation provided to the employees by valuing the same as if employees were employees of Central Government, accepted the same. The assessees’ obligation under Section 192 was held to be properly discharged, quashing the proceedings under Section 201[1] and 201[1A] of the Act. Though this order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - of residential accommodation provided to the employees by valuing the same as if employees were employees of Central Government, accepted the same. The assessees’ obligation under Section 192 was held to be properly discharged, quashing the proceedings under Section 201[1] and 201[1A] of the Act. Though this order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - of residential accommodation provided to the employees by valuing the same as if employees were employees of Central Government, accepted the same. The assessees’ obligation under Section 192 was held to be properly discharged, quashing the proceedings under Section 201[1] and 201[1A] of the Act. Though this order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - of residential accommodation provided to the employees by valuing the same as if employees were employees of Central Government, accepted the same. The assessees’ obligation under Section 192 was held to be properly discharged, quashing the proceedings under Section 201[1] and 201[1A] of the Act. Though this order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - of residential accommodation provided to the employees by valuing the same as if employees were employees of Central Government, accepted the same. The assessees’ obligation under Section 192 was held to be properly discharged, quashing the proceedings under Section 201[1] and 201[1A] of the Act. Though this order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - of residential accommodation provided to the employees by valuing the same as if employees were employees of Central Government, accepted the same. The assessees’ obligation under Section 192 was held to be properly discharged, quashing the proceedings under Section 201[1] and 201[1A] of the Act. Though this order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - of residential accommodation provided to the employees by valuing the same as if employees were employees of Central Government, accepted the same. The assessees’ obligation under Section 192 was held to be properly discharged, quashing the proceedings under Section 201[1] and 201[1A] of the Act. Though this order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - of residential accommodation provided to the employees by valuing the same as if employees were employees of Central Government, accepted the same. The assessees’ obligation under Section 192 was held to be properly discharged, quashing the proceedings under Section 201[1] and 201[1A] of the Act. Though this order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - of residential accommodation provided to the employees by valuing the same as if employees were employees of Central Government, accepted the same. The assessees’ obligation under Section 192 was held to be properly discharged, quashing the proceedings under Section 201[1] and 201[1A] of the Act. Though this order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - of residential accommodation provided to the employees by valuing the same as if employees were employees of Central Government, accepted the same. The assessees’ obligation under Section 192 was held to be properly discharged, quashing the proceedings under Section 201[1] and 201[1A] of the Act. Though this order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - of residential accommodation provided to the employees by valuing the same as if employees were employees of Central Government, accepted the same. The assessees’ obligation under Section 192 was held to be properly discharged, quashing the proceedings under Section 201[1] and 201[1A] of the Act. Though this order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue

STATE BANK OF INDIA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

37 - of residential accommodation provided to the employees by valuing the same as if employees were employees of Central Government, accepted the same. The assessees’ obligation under Section 192 was held to be properly discharged, quashing the proceedings under Section 201[1] and 201[1A] of the Act. Though this order of the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue