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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

35. The harassment faced by importers as a result of declared value being mechanically and invariably rejected, according to Mr. Gulati, was an aspect which had fallen for adverse comment of the Supreme Court itself in Century Metal Recycling. Mr. Gulati drew our attention to the following paragraphs of that judgment and which, according to him, lucidly enunciate the statutory

The Commissioner of Income Tax- IV vs. M/s. Prabhat Agri Bio Tech P Ltd.

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”, for short). A plea that the suit was filed beyond the period of limitation was also taken. It was also claimed by B.Ghose that it was not a necessary party to the suit. While admitting that the respondent No.1/plaintiff had been its employee, looking after the Delhi Office

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

35 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 37. As referred earlier, the Supreme Court in the matter of Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. (supra) highlighted that Wealth Commissioner following directions of Board of Revenue is “surrendered his judgment to the directions of the Board of Revenue” the Supreme Court has highlighted thus at para 5 : 5. The Commissioner appears

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

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

35 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 37. As referred earlier, the Supreme Court in the matter of Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. (supra) highlighted that Wealth Commissioner following directions of Board of Revenue is “surrendered his judgment to the directions of the Board of Revenue” the Supreme Court has highlighted thus at para 5 : 5. The Commissioner appears

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

35 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 37. As referred earlier, the Supreme Court in the matter of Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. (supra) highlighted that Wealth Commissioner following directions of Board of Revenue is “surrendered his judgment to the directions of the Board of Revenue” the Supreme Court has highlighted thus at para 5 : 5. The Commissioner appears

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

35 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 37. As referred earlier, the Supreme Court in the matter of Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. (supra) highlighted that Wealth Commissioner following directions of Board of Revenue is “surrendered his judgment to the directions of the Board of Revenue” the Supreme Court has highlighted thus at para 5 : 5. The Commissioner appears

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

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