Commissioner of Income TAx vs. Ongole Milk Line Pvt Ltd

Appeal is disposed of

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

delay in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. I. A. No. 2832 of 2014 stands allowed. Misc. Appeal No. 189 of 2014 With the consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up to be decided on merit. The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. It appears that claimants had filed claim petition being

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s.Alloy Nitrides Ltd

Appeals are disposed of

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

delay in preferring the aforesaid appeal is condoned and the said I.A. is allowed. M.A. No.477 of 2011 and M.A. No.992 of 2011 Heard learned counsels for the appellants and the respondents. As the aforesaid two appeals have cropped up from the common judgment and award hence with consent of both the parties, both these appeals are disposed

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

166 ITR 244 (Mad)] that the 22 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters Assistant Director of Inspection who was the authorised officer for the purposes of carrying out search and seizure but was not the Income Tax Officer who could pass an order under sub-section (5) of Section 132 could not retain the seized documents etc. beyond

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

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

166 ITR 244 (Mad)] that the 22 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters Assistant Director of Inspection who was the authorised officer for the purposes of carrying out search and seizure but was not the Income Tax Officer who could pass an order under sub-section (5) of Section 132 could not retain the seized documents etc. beyond

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

166 ITR 244 (Mad)] that the 22 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters Assistant Director of Inspection who was the authorised officer for the purposes of carrying out search and seizure but was not the Income Tax Officer who could pass an order under sub-section (5) of Section 132 could not retain the seized documents etc. beyond

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

166 ITR 244 (Mad)] that the 22 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters Assistant Director of Inspection who was the authorised officer for the purposes of carrying out search and seizure but was not the Income Tax Officer who could pass an order under sub-section (5) of Section 132 could not retain the seized documents etc. beyond