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

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

ii) General power of superintendence must be distinguished from the interference in the adjudication process. The authority in which a discretion is vested can be compelled to exercise that discretion, but not to exercise it in any particular manner. iii) The Court must be mindful of the fact that the adjudication process must be free from any kind of bias

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

ii) General power of superintendence must be distinguished from the interference in the adjudication process. The authority in which a discretion is vested can be compelled to exercise that discretion, but not to exercise it in any particular manner. iii) The Court must be mindful of the fact that the adjudication process must be free from any kind of bias

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

ii) General power of superintendence must be distinguished from the interference in the adjudication process. The authority in which a discretion is vested can be compelled to exercise that discretion, but not to exercise it in any particular manner. iii) The Court must be mindful of the fact that the adjudication process must be free from any kind of bias

Commissioner of Income tax-V, vs. Sri Ravinder Singh Arora (PAN ABQPA4166N)

The appeals are dismissed and the pending cross objections are disposed

delay of 50 days in re-filing the appeals is condoned. ITA Nos. 365, 366, 367, 368, 371 & 372 of2013 Page of 6 2. The applications are disposed of ITA No.365/2013 ITA No.366/2013 & CM No.23640/2015 ITA No.367/2013 & CM No.23644/2015 ITA 368/2013 & CM No.23646/2015 ITA No.371/2013 & ITA No.372/2013 & CM No.23642/2015 3. The question framed in the present appeals by the order