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

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

reopening. The return of income was filled by the assesee on 06.06.95 however, the AO did not do anything till 20.12.95. On 20.12.95 the AO went to Delhi on receipt of some message of the DDIT (Inv.), amazingly the purpose of visit was for discussion about the case. 47 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 60. We may also

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

reopening. The return of income was filled by the assesee on 06.06.95 however, the AO did not do anything till 20.12.95. On 20.12.95 the AO went to Delhi on receipt of some message of the DDIT (Inv.), amazingly the purpose of visit was for discussion about the case. 47 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 60. We may also

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

reopening. The return of income was filled by the assesee on 06.06.95 however, the AO did not do anything till 20.12.95. On 20.12.95 the AO went to Delhi on receipt of some message of the DDIT (Inv.), amazingly the purpose of visit was for discussion about the case. 47 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 60. We may also

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dr.Kodela Siva Prasada Rao

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

reopened the earlier assessments and brought to tax the allowances received by the assessee after holding that no exemption was available to the assessee on such allowances. 4. In this appeal, we are only concerned with the issue relating to an amount of Rs.22,76,750/- in U.S. dollars received by the assessee from an NRI which was credited

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

Section 2(15) of the Act?. 44. We are dealing with a taxing statute. The intention of the legislature in a taxation statute is to be gathered from the language of the provisions particularly where the language is plain and unambiguous. In a Taxing Act, it is not possible to assume any intention or the governing purpose of the statute

THE COMMISSIONER OCF INCOME TAX-I vs. M/S.BHARAT BIOTECH INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: :

reopening was made on the basis of specific and credible information from the investigation wing of the department ? 2 b) Whether in facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in law in quashing the reassessment order without considering the established legal principles as laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi

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

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

Section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013. Therefore, the Chairman of the company, HVL cannot arrogate unto himself the power to cause such appointment when such power ultimately rests with the Board of Directors. The observation of the two Joint APLs that the evident performance of BCrL, the flagship company of MP Birla Group is deteriorating ever since, HVL became

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

68. The patent illegality in the impugned award does not stop with the reopening of the proceedings to inquire into the authenticity of the specimen letter TA-9. Shri R.S. Chauhan AW-2, the inspector who was an independent witness had clearly stated that he had asked the respondent Raman Kapoor FAO(OS) 373/2011 Page 20 of 44 about

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

Section 27 begins with a proviso and states that when any fact is deposed to as discovered, in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved, 49 whether it amounts to a confession