The Commissioner of Income-tax-I, vs. Derco Cooling Coils Ltd,

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

HOUSE, JALAHALLI I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 7 GOKULA BANGALORE-560 054 PAN: AAATM34931G …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. A. SHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. M. LAVA, ADVOCATE) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 21/11/2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.1651/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009, PRAYING

The Commissioner of Income Tax- I vs. Harmahendar Singh Bagga

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

HOUSE, JALAHALLI I.T.A Nos.176/2015, 520/2014, 175/2015, 177/2015, 178/2015, 179/2015, 298/2015 7 GOKULA BANGALORE-560 054 PAN: AAATM34931G …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. A. SHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. M. LAVA, ADVOCATE) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 21/11/2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.1651/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009, PRAYING

M/s. Canara Securities Ltd vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO,T.AMARNATH GOUD

properties as alleged. It is submitted that similar submissions were made by HVL before the Joint APLs which is evidenced by the Minutes of the meeting dated 21st July, 2017, similar stand was taken in his affidavit-in-opposition to the administrator's proceedings filed by the respondents in 2008 which culminated in judgment of the Division Bench dated 23rd

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. M/s Indur Green Power Private Limited

In the result, all the appeals fail and are hereby

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

133(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in the capacity of assessing officer of the Naroda Enviro Projects Ltd., Ahmedabad. (23) The Gujarat Pollution Control Board vide letter dated 21/12/2012 has submitted a list of 162 persons to whom closure directions has been issued from 01/01/2011 to 28/11/2011 in Ahmedabad Region the same is made Annexure-A to this

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused has denied his implication in the case/offence and has claimed that he was tortured and that his nails were extracted, his genitals were burnt and petrol was put in his anus. He offered to get himself medically examined to prove his allegations. The accused SK also claimed that he was extended other tortures and the C.B.I

THE COMM. OF INCOME TAX RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S B.KRISHNA MURTHY AND OTHERS

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

property. A total of 143 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. A-1’s statement under Section 313 Cr PC 24. As far as the statement of A-1 under Section 313 Cr PC is concerned, it is relevant to note that A-1, apart from denying many of the circumstances put to him by the prosecution, gave

The Commissioner of Income-Tax - VI, vs. Shri Mekala Bal Reddy

133 of 2013 Appellant :- Pramod And Others Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Atul Kulshrestha,Sudhir Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate And Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION U/S 372 CR.P.C (LEAVE TO APPEAL) No. - 21 of 2013 Applicant :- Ummed Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Applicant :- Vivek Kumar Singh,Ajay Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite

Commissioner of Income Tax, Rajahmundry. vs. m/s Ganesh Arrack Contractors,

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

property or whatever may be the object of the tax in a particular case and determining its amount”. Section 35 of the 1922 Act conferred power on the Commissioner or the Appellate Commissioner to suo motu rectify any mistake apparent on the record, appeal, revision, assessment or refund within four years from the date of such order

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s Y.Ramakrishna and Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

property or whatever may be the object of the tax in a particular case and determining its amount”. Section 35 of the 1922 Act conferred power on the Commissioner or the Appellate Commissioner to suo motu rectify any mistake apparent on the record, appeal, revision, assessment or refund within four years from the date of such order

COMMISSISONER OF I.T. RAJAHMUNDRY vs. M/S.Y RAMAKRISHNA AND OTHERS

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

property or whatever may be the object of the tax in a particular case and determining its amount”. Section 35 of the 1922 Act conferred power on the Commissioner or the Appellate Commissioner to suo motu rectify any mistake apparent on the record, appeal, revision, assessment or refund within four years from the date of such order

COMMISSIONER OFINCOEMETAX vs. M/S. V.SATYANARAYANA AND OTHERS

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

property or whatever may be the object of the tax in a particular case and determining its amount”. Section 35 of the 1922 Act conferred power on the Commissioner or the Appellate Commissioner to suo motu rectify any mistake apparent on the record, appeal, revision, assessment or refund within four years from the date of such order

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s GRK Prasad AND others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

property or whatever may be the object of the tax in a particular case and determining its amount”. Section 35 of the 1922 Act conferred power on the Commissioner or the Appellate Commissioner to suo motu rectify any mistake apparent on the record, appeal, revision, assessment or refund within four years from the date of such order

The Commissioner of Income tax vs. M/s.V.Satyanrayana AND Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

property or whatever may be the object of the tax in a particular case and determining its amount”. Section 35 of the 1922 Act conferred power on the Commissioner or the Appellate Commissioner to suo motu rectify any mistake apparent on the record, appeal, revision, assessment or refund within four years from the date of such order

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ms. B.krishna Murthy AND Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

property or whatever may be the object of the tax in a particular case and determining its amount”. Section 35 of the 1922 Act conferred power on the Commissioner or the Appellate Commissioner to suo motu rectify any mistake apparent on the record, appeal, revision, assessment or refund within four years from the date of such order

COMMR.OF I.T. RKAJAHMUNDRY vs. T.RAMI REDDY AND ORS

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

property or whatever may be the object of the tax in a particular case and determining its amount”. Section 35 of the 1922 Act conferred power on the Commissioner or the Appellate Commissioner to suo motu rectify any mistake apparent on the record, appeal, revision, assessment or refund within four years from the date of such order

The Commissioner of income tax, vs. M/s.Y.Ramulu and Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

property or whatever may be the object of the tax in a particular case and determining its amount”. Section 35 of the 1922 Act conferred power on the Commissioner or the Appellate Commissioner to suo motu rectify any mistake apparent on the record, appeal, revision, assessment or refund within four years from the date of such order

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.B.Satyanarayana AND Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

property or whatever may be the object of the tax in a particular case and determining its amount”. Section 35 of the 1922 Act conferred power on the Commissioner or the Appellate Commissioner to suo motu rectify any mistake apparent on the record, appeal, revision, assessment or refund within four years from the date of such order

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. m/S.M.Ventakteswara Rao AND Others

In the result, for the above reasons, we set aside the orders

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

property or whatever may be the object of the tax in a particular case and determining its amount”. Section 35 of the 1922 Act conferred power on the Commissioner or the Appellate Commissioner to suo motu rectify any mistake apparent on the record, appeal, revision, assessment or refund within four years from the date of such order