V.C. NANNAPANENI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

In the result, the appeals are allowed

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

gain”. 3. The appellant as well as the company filed separate appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who dismissed the same confirming the orders of the AO. Aggrieved by those orders, the assessee has filed two appeals ITA Nos.642 and 782/Hyd/2002 for the assessment year 1998- 99 and 1999-2000 respectively, and the company filed ITA No.361/Hyd/2003

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. M/s. Avon Organics Limited

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

gains of business or profession". 9. Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Samsung India Electronics Ltd. (ITA 131/2010) decided on July 9, 2013, had held as under:- “7. The aforesaid distinction is relevant when we examine and refers to the definition of „previous year‟. Following the said judgment, in the case of CIT v. L.G. Electronic (India

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Independent Assemblies of God

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

201 ITA-290-2005 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.12.2025 M/S MAJESTIC AUTO LTD. ...Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR …Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL Present:- Mr. Viren Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Yash Srivastava, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate for respondent-Income Tax *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX, RJY, E.G.DIST vs. M/S KADAKATLA RICE MILL, TADEPALLIGUDEM, W.G.DIST

Bench: The Income Tax Settlement Commission/Respondent No. 1 On 8Th April, 2015 For Settlement Of Its Income Tax Matters By Disclosing An Income Of Rs. 3,93,93,544/-. The Aforesaid Application Of The Respondent No. 2 Was Proceeded With Under Section 245 D (1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By An Order Dated 21St April, 2015. After Receipt Of The Report Under Section 245 D (2B) Of The Act, From The

capital @ 2% which works out to Rs. 7,80,000/-. The same shall also be included in addition to Rs. 12,606/- as per Tax Audit Report.” Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner/Income Tax Authority in support of his contention and against the impugned order of the Settlement Commission apart from its Report under Rule 9 of Income Tax Settlement

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became

M/s Durga Granites, vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

201 to 208, Barharwa, Barhait Road, Chapandey, P.O. & P.S. Chapandey, District Sahebganj, PIN - 816101, (Jharkhand) through its Proprietor namely, Shri Santosh Kumar Dokania, aged about 72 years, son of Late Beni Prasad Dokania, resident of Main Road near Railway Station, Barharwa, P.O. & P.S. Barharwa, District Sahibganj, PIN-816101, (Jharkhand). ..........Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, Department