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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

D) Reference is made to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of CIT v K.V. Krishnaswamy Naidu6, to submit that the authorised officer, the Director (Inv.), was only confined to carry out search and seizure, but was not the Income- Tax Officer who could pass an order under sub-section (5) of Section 132 and could

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

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

D) Reference is made to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of CIT v K.V. Krishnaswamy Naidu6, to submit that the authorised officer, the Director (Inv.), was only confined to carry out search and seizure, but was not the Income- Tax Officer who could pass an order under sub-section (5) of Section 132 and could

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

D) Reference is made to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of CIT v K.V. Krishnaswamy Naidu6, to submit that the authorised officer, the Director (Inv.), was only confined to carry out search and seizure, but was not the Income- Tax Officer who could pass an order under sub-section (5) of Section 132 and could

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

D) Reference is made to the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of CIT v K.V. Krishnaswamy Naidu6, to submit that the authorised officer, the Director (Inv.), was only confined to carry out search and seizure, but was not the Income- Tax Officer who could pass an order under sub-section (5) of Section 132 and could

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S Sri Krishna Drugs Ltd.,

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

u/s 143(3), it was specifically pointed out and explained to the AO by the assessee that the reason for the heavy expenditure claimed under the head of legal expenses was that this expenses was in respect of Advocate fee and cost of Civil Suit filed in the High Court for possession and eviction against its tenant/OBC. This

The Commissioner of Income Tax -III vs. Sri T.C. Reddy

The appeal stands dismissed

u/s 271(1)(c) r.w 274 of the Income-tax Act for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars are initiated separately. (iv) The assessee has booked various expenses of contractual nature, vide order sheet entry dated 29.12.2009, the assessee was asked to show cause why the same should not disallowed u/s40a(ia). In response thereto the assessee has only filed

Dr.D. Siva Sankara Rao-HUF vs. I.T.O. Ward-2, Eluru

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

reassessment of market value using a fair and just approach. Learned Counsel clarifies that they are seeking compensation based on actual usage and future potentiality of the acquired land. It is submitted that if the land is capable of being used for building purposes in the near future, its valuation must reflect such capability. Reliance is placed on Clause

P.V.S.Raju vs. The Addl. C.I.T.

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

reassessment of market value using a fair and just approach. Learned Counsel clarifies that they are seeking compensation based on actual usage and future potentiality of the acquired land. It is submitted that if the land is capable of being used for building purposes in the near future, its valuation must reflect such capability. Reliance is placed on Clause

Pinna Nageswara RAo, vs. Commissioner of Income tax, IV (A.P)

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

D) by LRs & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr3 and Delhi Development Authority v Rajendra Singh & Ors.4 to submit that there should be no discrimination between landowners when land is of similar nature. 18.3.1 It is contended that the acquired land is half a kilometre away from Maharani Bagh and village Jasola is about one kilometre away from village Kilokari

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX-7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S SRI VENKATESWARA PADMAVATHI COMPAY, KHAMMAM DIST

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

D) by LRs & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr3 and Delhi Development Authority v Rajendra Singh & Ors.4 to submit that there should be no discrimination between landowners when land is of similar nature. 18.3.1 It is contended that the acquired land is half a kilometre away from Maharani Bagh and village Jasola is about one kilometre away from village Kilokari

Kuchipudi Krishna Kishore vs. THE DCIT, CIR-2[1],

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

D) by LRs & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr3 and Delhi Development Authority v Rajendra Singh & Ors.4 to submit that there should be no discrimination between landowners when land is of similar nature. 18.3.1 It is contended that the acquired land is half a kilometre away from Maharani Bagh and village Jasola is about one kilometre away from village Kilokari

Commissioner of Income Tax -II, vs. M/S Kasila Farms Ltd.,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

D) by LRs & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr3 and Delhi Development Authority v Rajendra Singh & Ors.4 to submit that there should be no discrimination between landowners when land is of similar nature. 18.3.1 It is contended that the acquired land is half a kilometre away from Maharani Bagh and village Jasola is about one kilometre away from village Kilokari

THE PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. L. SURYAKANTHAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

D) by LRs & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr3 and Delhi Development Authority v Rajendra Singh & Ors.4 to submit that there should be no discrimination between landowners when land is of similar nature. 18.3.1 It is contended that the acquired land is half a kilometre away from Maharani Bagh and village Jasola is about one kilometre away from village Kilokari

Commissionr of Income TAx-3 vs. M/s State Bank of Hyderabad

Bench: ANIS,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

D) by LRs & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr3 and Delhi Development Authority v Rajendra Singh & Ors.4 to submit that there should be no discrimination between landowners when land is of similar nature. 18.3.1 It is contended that the acquired land is half a kilometre away from Maharani Bagh and village Jasola is about one kilometre away from village Kilokari

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.NCC - KNR JV

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

D) by LRs & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr3 and Delhi Development Authority v Rajendra Singh & Ors.4 to submit that there should be no discrimination between landowners when land is of similar nature. 18.3.1 It is contended that the acquired land is half a kilometre away from Maharani Bagh and village Jasola is about one kilometre away from village Kilokari

The Pr. Commissioner of Incometax-4 vs. Smt. S. Uma Devi

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

D) by LRs & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr3 and Delhi Development Authority v Rajendra Singh & Ors.4 to submit that there should be no discrimination between landowners when land is of similar nature. 18.3.1 It is contended that the acquired land is half a kilometre away from Maharani Bagh and village Jasola is about one kilometre away from village Kilokari

Commissioner of Income Tax I vs. Smt. P. Seetha

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

D) by LRs & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr3 and Delhi Development Authority v Rajendra Singh & Ors.4 to submit that there should be no discrimination between landowners when land is of similar nature. 18.3.1 It is contended that the acquired land is half a kilometre away from Maharani Bagh and village Jasola is about one kilometre away from village Kilokari

Commissioner of Income Tax II vs. HMT Bearings Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

D) by LRs & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr3 and Delhi Development Authority v Rajendra Singh & Ors.4 to submit that there should be no discrimination between landowners when land is of similar nature. 18.3.1 It is contended that the acquired land is half a kilometre away from Maharani Bagh and village Jasola is about one kilometre away from village Kilokari

Commissioner of Income Tax II vs. TPS Laboratories Pvt. Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

D) by LRs & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr3 and Delhi Development Authority v Rajendra Singh & Ors.4 to submit that there should be no discrimination between landowners when land is of similar nature. 18.3.1 It is contended that the acquired land is half a kilometre away from Maharani Bagh and village Jasola is about one kilometre away from village Kilokari