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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

264 of the Act) set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax on the ground that the CWT sought instructions from the Central Board. The Court held that the power conferred under Section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act was not administrative power but quasi judicial power and the Central Board could not give directions

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

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

264 of the Act) set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax on the ground that the CWT sought instructions from the Central Board. The Court held that the power conferred under Section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act was not administrative power but quasi judicial power and the Central Board could not give directions

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

264 of the Act) set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax on the ground that the CWT sought instructions from the Central Board. The Court held that the power conferred under Section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act was not administrative power but quasi judicial power and the Central Board could not give directions

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

264 of the Act) set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax on the ground that the CWT sought instructions from the Central Board. The Court held that the power conferred under Section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act was not administrative power but quasi judicial power and the Central Board could not give directions

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Kumar Raja Associates

The appeals stand dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

u/s 254 is received by the chief commissioner or commissioner. After amendment of this sub section with fact from 01.06.2001 this time limit has been reduced to 1 year. Thus in the present case the time limit for passing the assessment order before the AO was upto 31.03.2001. The assessment order however has been passed on 28.03.2002 i.e. much after

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