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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

v. Madan Rai [Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai, (2003) 12 SCC 395 : 2004 SCC (Cri) Supp 445] referring to the expression ―reasonable doubt‖ in criminal law it was held as under : (SCC p. 405, para 24) ―24. Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

47 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 60. We may also like to give the account of proceedings which was conducted before the AO from 05.02.96 to the date on which he has passed the order which are as follows : 5.2.96: In response to statutory notice Shri G.C. Jain, Authorised Attorney appeared and filed a letter dated 5.2.96 from

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

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

47 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 60. We may also like to give the account of proceedings which was conducted before the AO from 05.02.96 to the date on which he has passed the order which are as follows : 5.2.96: In response to statutory notice Shri G.C. Jain, Authorised Attorney appeared and filed a letter dated 5.2.96 from

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

47 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 60. We may also like to give the account of proceedings which was conducted before the AO from 05.02.96 to the date on which he has passed the order which are as follows : 5.2.96: In response to statutory notice Shri G.C. Jain, Authorised Attorney appeared and filed a letter dated 5.2.96 from

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

47 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 60. We may also like to give the account of proceedings which was conducted before the AO from 05.02.96 to the date on which he has passed the order which are as follows : 5.2.96: In response to statutory notice Shri G.C. Jain, Authorised Attorney appeared and filed a letter dated 5.2.96 from

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

condone the delay in filinq the cross-objections on condition that the claimant is entitled for rnlerest on the enhanced compensation from the date of filing of the cross-objecttons. 13. ln the light of the above discussion, the cross-objecto/claimant is entitled for compensation under the following heads; 1. Loss of dependency 2. Consortium 3. Funeral expenses

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt. Raj Kumari

Accordingly are partly allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

delay. 38. He submits that learned Single Judge although purportedly referred to cases cited above, considered those oblivious of underlying principle. The matters require re-appreciation and reconsideration. 16. He further submits, may be that an objection to maintainability of the appeals is sought to be raised, however, the same having been raised after admission of the appeals, it loses