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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

25 (2011) 8 SCC 380 42 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 51. However, the proposition that No one can be judge in own cause and justice must not be done but seems to be done comes to serious quandary when applied in the Administrative law for the simple reason that sometimes the statute itself requires a officer

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

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

25 (2011) 8 SCC 380 42 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 51. However, the proposition that No one can be judge in own cause and justice must not be done but seems to be done comes to serious quandary when applied in the Administrative law for the simple reason that sometimes the statute itself requires a officer

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

25 (2011) 8 SCC 380 42 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 51. However, the proposition that No one can be judge in own cause and justice must not be done but seems to be done comes to serious quandary when applied in the Administrative law for the simple reason that sometimes the statute itself requires a officer

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

25 (2011) 8 SCC 380 42 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 51. However, the proposition that No one can be judge in own cause and justice must not be done but seems to be done comes to serious quandary when applied in the Administrative law for the simple reason that sometimes the statute itself requires a officer

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV, vs. Parnika Constructions P. Ltd.,

Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

delay of 66 days in preferring the appeal is condoned as no counter affidavit has been filed by the Insurance Company and the reason assigned by the appellants is acceptable to the court. Accordingly I.A. No. 602 of 2021 is allowed. M.A. No. 73 of 2014 1. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. -2- 2. The instant Miscellaneous Appeal

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Sind Coop. Urban Bank Ltd.,

The appeal of the State is allowed and the appeal of the applicants

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

ii), which are forests not owned by the Government, on which MPPF Act is not applicable, including waste lands enclosed within wooden areas; within the district of Malabar. The third category are those under S2(f)(2), being private forest or waste lands, including waste lands enclosed M.F.A.(Forest) Nos. 24 & 69 of 2011 13 . within wooded areas

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page 50 of 137 of the declared value on ―certain reasons‖ which could include the grounds specified in sub-clauses (a) to (f) in clause (iii) of the Explanation. 16.7. The proper officer, on a request made by the importer, has to furnish and intimate to the importer in writing the grounds

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page 50 of 137 of the declared value on ―certain reasons‖ which could include the grounds specified in sub-clauses (a) to (f) in clause (iii) of the Explanation. 16.7. The proper officer, on a request made by the importer, has to furnish and intimate to the importer in writing the grounds

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/s Sri Sri Gruha Nirman India Pvt. Ltd.

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

delay in re- filing the appeal is condoned. ITA 1021/2019 & ITA 157/2023 1. These two appeals between same parties are based on similar factual and legal matrix, so taken up together for disposal. The appeal bearing ITA No. 1021/2019 pertains to the Assessment Year 2011-12 while the other appeal bearing ITA No. 157/2023 pertains to the Assessment Year

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, vs. M/s. V.Dhana Reddy AND Co.,

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

II of the said act in application under Section 163-A of MV Act. Lastly, she submits that the proforma for filing application under Section 163-A is given in SR-49 and the tribunal could not have traveled beyond the provisions of said section and allowed the compensation to the claimant treating the claim petition under section

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Chirla Rama Reddy

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Delay condoned. Date of order: 30-7-2018 I.T.A. No.798/2006 The Commissioner of Income-Tax & Anr. vs. Sri K.Gopal 5/22 Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated February 9, 2011 should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases under the Income

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Voith Turbo Pvt Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Delay condoned. Date of order: 30-7-2018 I.T.A. No.168/2006 The Commissioner of Income-Tax & Anr. vs. Sri Anil Kabra 5/22 Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated February 9, 2011 should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases under