M/S TEJAS NETWORKS LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

253(4) of the Act? (2) If the answer to the above question is in the negative; Whether impugned order dated 15 31.01.2014 – Annexure-R passed by first respondent is liable to be interfered for any reason whatsoever? (3) What order? RE: POINT No.(1) 11. Learned Advocate appearing for respondents has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability

M/S FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

253 of the Act. 21. Section 254 of the Act delineates the powers of the Tribunal. We are not presently deciding the taxability part of such buy-back of the shares by the Company because that would essentially depend upon the fresh inquiry or investigation upon remand by the learned Tribunal vide impugned Order dated Date of Judgment

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S OBULAPURAM MINING

Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR,UMESH M ADIGA

253 ITR 0749 (Guj). 29.Learned counsel for the respondent/assessee relied upon Section 309(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, which reads as under “309. Remuneration of directors.-(1) The remuneration payable to the directors of a company, including any managing or whole- time director, shall be determined, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of section 198 and this