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

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

VIII - copy of account of petition files before settlement commission by Shri J.K. Jain having 12 pages. ix) SET - IX - report from CBI having 117 pages. x) SET - X - Statement of accused recorded by CBI as containing 258 pages. xi) SET - XI - Containing statements of witnesses by CBI having 125 pages. 28 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

VIII - copy of account of petition files before settlement commission by Shri J.K. Jain having 12 pages. ix) SET - IX - report from CBI having 117 pages. x) SET - X - Statement of accused recorded by CBI as containing 258 pages. xi) SET - XI - Containing statements of witnesses by CBI having 125 pages. 28 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters

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

VIII - copy of account of petition files before settlement commission by Shri J.K. Jain having 12 pages. ix) SET - IX - report from CBI having 117 pages. x) SET - X - Statement of accused recorded by CBI as containing 258 pages. xi) SET - XI - Containing statements of witnesses by CBI having 125 pages. 28 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters

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

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