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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 13 is somewhat obscure in its import. It enacts that no orders, instructions or directions shall be given by the Board so as to interfere with the discretion of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax in the exercise of his appellate functions. It does not, however, imply that the Board may give any directions or instructions

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

Section 13 is somewhat obscure in its import. It enacts that no orders, instructions or directions shall be given by the Board so as to interfere with the discretion of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax in the exercise of his appellate functions. It does not, however, imply that the Board may give any directions or instructions

PR COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. K RAVINDER REDDY, HYDERABAD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

reassessment proceedings. The assessees resisted the move to assess them, contending that they were not subjected to income tax laws of India as they had no permanent establishment. The AO by order dated 31.12.2008 held that the appellant has a fixed place PE and DAPE in India. Further, the AO also deemed 10% of the value of supplies made

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Kalyani Wines

In the result, I find this appeal bereft of merit and accordingly,

Bench: Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Robin Phukan

viii) It is settled principle of law that an order on the objections to an arbitration award should comply with the provisions of Order 20 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Court should state its finding on decision with the reasons therefore upon each separate issue. But, the learned Court, in a most perfunctory manner

M/s. PLL-Suncon Joint Venture vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

viii. The appellant had produced a document (Mark Z-12) claimed to be in the handwriting of O.P. Kapoor, which showed that till 31.12.1995 US $ 1,69,500/- remained outstanding from him. 13. The arbitral tribunal disregarded the two letters dated 15.02.1992 and 24.02.1992 (R-34 and 35), which bore the appellant‟s signatures. While accepting his claim that these

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Hyderabad House Pvt Ltd.,

reassessment of damages. This is what was the theme of discourse in Santosh Devi (supra) and in a later decision in Puttamma (supra). In Puttamma (supra), the Supreme Court called upon the State to explain inaction on its part in the context of authorization given to the Central Government by Section 163-A (3) to make improvements on account