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

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

H) In support of his contention, learned counsel would place reliance upon the decisions rendered in the matters of Vineet Narain (supra), Sirpur Paper Mill Ltd. v Commissioner of Wealth-Tax, Andhra Pradesh7, The Purtabpur Company Ltd. v Cane Commissioner of Bihar and Others8, State of U.P. v. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh9, State of NCT & Anr. v Sanjeev Bittoo10, Jawahar

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

H) In support of his contention, learned counsel would place reliance upon the decisions rendered in the matters of Vineet Narain (supra), Sirpur Paper Mill Ltd. v Commissioner of Wealth-Tax, Andhra Pradesh7, The Purtabpur Company Ltd. v Cane Commissioner of Bihar and Others8, State of U.P. v. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh9, State of NCT & Anr. v Sanjeev Bittoo10, Jawahar

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

H) In support of his contention, learned counsel would place reliance upon the decisions rendered in the matters of Vineet Narain (supra), Sirpur Paper Mill Ltd. v Commissioner of Wealth-Tax, Andhra Pradesh7, The Purtabpur Company Ltd. v Cane Commissioner of Bihar and Others8, State of U.P. v. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh9, State of NCT & Anr. v Sanjeev Bittoo10, Jawahar

Maheswara Educational Society, vs. Director of Income Tax (Exemptions)

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 10(23C) (iii ad) of the Act is concerned. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) as also the ITAT ought to have allowed the appeal and condoned the delay considering the bona fide and reasonable grounds explained by the app,eltant. According to the learned counsel for the appellant

The Commissioner of Income Tax-V, vs. Sri. P.Krishna

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

H No.16-14-20 K, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO. 1 1. National lnsurance Company Limited, Rep.by its Divisional [Vlanager, D.O.lV,M.J.Irlarket Twin Cities Complex, Hyderabad. 2. A.Dayakar Reddy, S/o A.Yadi Reddy, age: major Fyo H.No.18-245, Pragathi Nagar, Uppal Road, Rama nthapu r, R. R. District. Petition under Section 15'1 of C P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated

M/S MAQSOD AND CO HYDERABAD vs. THE COMMNER OF INCOME TAX HYD

H. तिवारी नि० कल्यानपुर जि० कानपुर एवं अन्य लोगों ने देखा है। दुर्घटना के समय पुलिस कर्मी आ गये जिनकी मदद से मैने एवं 11 अन्य लोगों ने घायल को K.P.M. हास्पि टल कानपुर में भर्ती कराया। यह घटना कार चालक DDQ/8855 की गलती तेजी व लापरवाही के कारण हुई है।" 20. In his cross-examination, relevant on the point