The Commissioner of Income Tax - III, vs. M/s. Suven Pharmaceuticals Limited,

Appeals are dismissed

254 or section 260 or section 262 or  section 263 or section 264 or an order of the  Settlement Commission under sub­section (4)  of section 245D, the amount on which interest  was   payable   under   sub­section   (1)   or   sub­ section (3) has been increased or reduced, as  the   case   may   be,   the   interest   shall   be  increased or reduced accordingly, and­

SRI PRASANCHAND SURANA SEC.BAD

Appeal is dismissed

capital gains of Rs. 13,62,865/- as undisclosed income of the assessee in the block period and to tax the same while framing regular assessment for assessment year 1995-96. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed by the revenue. 3. Mr. Sudhir Mehta, learned advocate appearing for the revenue submitted that the Tribunal

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

In the result, this Cr.M.P

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

254 of the Act, a finding of the Appellate Tribunal supersedes the order of the assessing officer under Section 143(3) more so when the assessing officer cancelled the penalty levied. 26. In our view, once the finding of concealment and subsequent levy of penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been struck down by the Tribunal

The commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s Bhagyanagar Studios

The appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (vii)Whether the Ld. Tribunal has not erred in refusing to first do away with the mistake which it committed in MA No. 98/ASR/2010 before proceeding to hear the appeals in ITA ANJU 2018.10.16 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document phhc

THE PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [CENTRAL] HYDERABAD vs. M/S SREE NAGENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS, KHAMMAM

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

Bench: This

gain or loss would be on capital account and not taxable cannot be faulted with. Hence, the challenge made by the Revenue on this issue is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.” In view of the aforesaid, these substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Re. substantial question

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

Capital) Appeal No. 1475 of 2009 corresponding to Reference No. 3 of 2009, by a co-ordinate bench of this Court on 11th September, 2009. The judgment of this Court in 'XYZ' has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. (s). 2227 of 2010, decided on 15.2.2011, with summary dismissal of appeal. 15. Separate and distinct trials

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