PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S GOLDEN STAR FACILITIES AND SERVICES PVT LTD., HYD

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 13 which provides for Rule making power of the Central Government in respect of minerals. Section 13 subsection (1) WP(C). 11249/2010 & other contd cases. -:88:- and Section 13 Sub-section (2) in so far as relevant in the present case are as follows: “13. Power of Central Government to make Rules in respect

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

131 of the IT Act. Letter sent by the DDIT (Inv.), Delhi, to the DCIT (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax), Special Range, Bhilai, who is the Assessing Officer (for brevity ‘the AO’) for initiating reassessment proceedings. The relevant seized documents and set of papers were sent to the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Jabalpur on 1-3-1995. d

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

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

131 of the IT Act. Letter sent by the DDIT (Inv.), Delhi, to the DCIT (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax), Special Range, Bhilai, who is the Assessing Officer (for brevity ‘the AO’) for initiating reassessment proceedings. The relevant seized documents and set of papers were sent to the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Jabalpur on 1-3-1995. d

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

131 of the IT Act. Letter sent by the DDIT (Inv.), Delhi, to the DCIT (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax), Special Range, Bhilai, who is the Assessing Officer (for brevity ‘the AO’) for initiating reassessment proceedings. The relevant seized documents and set of papers were sent to the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Jabalpur on 1-3-1995. d

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

131 of the IT Act. Letter sent by the DDIT (Inv.), Delhi, to the DCIT (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax), Special Range, Bhilai, who is the Assessing Officer (for brevity ‘the AO’) for initiating reassessment proceedings. The relevant seized documents and set of papers were sent to the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Jabalpur on 1-3-1995. d

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Energy Solutions International India Pvt Ltd.,

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

d) The ITAT substantially upheld the version of Assessee and granted relief by setting aside the addition made by the AO. Aggrieved thereby, the Revenue has preferred this appeal under the provisions of the 260A of the 1961 Act with the substantial questions of law hereinabove mentioned. - 7 - ITA No. 383 of 2016 III. Having heard the learned counsel

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Chirla Rama Reddy, Contract

Appeal is dismissed with costs

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice N.K.Sudhindrarao R.S.A.No.70/2007

131: 1 BLROC 47: 4 MHCR 425 Dis.)] “The term execution of document consists in signing a document, written out, read over and understood and does not consist of merely signing a blank paper”. AIR 1916 Pat 206, quoted. Birbal Singh v.Harphool Khan, AIR 1976 All 23 t 24. [Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S.118]. Execution of document

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

68 of 171 with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA + LA.AP. 256/2017 POJA .Apelant Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar

The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Sri Laxmi Narasimha Wines,

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

68 of 171 with Ms. Shivangi Bhasin, Advocate for DA Mr. Kunal Sharma, Mr. Vaishn a v Kumar, Advocates for DA + LA.AP. 256/2017 POJA .Apelant Through: Mr. Bhagwat Pd. Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Gupta and Mr. Ganga Ram Upadhyay, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR .Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Ms. K.K. Kiran Pathak, Mr. Sunil Kumar

The Pr. Commissioner of Income tax (Central), vs. Sri Vaishnavi Educational Society,

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar W.P. No.51929/2014 C/W W.P.Nos.42063/2012, 30494/2013, 42671/2013, 638/2014, 797/2014, 1089/2014, 3211/2014, 3389/2014, 6180/2014, 10356/2014, 12014/2014, 12015/2014, 13043/2014, 13045/2014, 13206/2014, 13207/2014, 13398/2014, 13774/2014, 14149/2014, 14161/2014, 14494/2014, 14502/2014, 14521/2014, 14689/2014, 16646/2014, 17051/2014, 17594/2014, 19729/2014, 21158/2014, 23897/2014, 28861/2014, 30731/2014, 31723/2014, 33774/2014, 33777/2014, 34084/2014, 34259/2014, 34272/2014, 34391/2014, 35204/2014, 35243/2014, 35247/2014, 35305/2014, 35609/2014, 36164/2014, 36166/2014, 36489/2014, 36525/2014, 36971/2014, 37446/2014, 38055/2014, 38463/2014, 38471/2014, 38472/2014, 38661/2014, 38753/2014, 39383/2014, 39633/2014, 39832/2014, 40204/2014, 40379/2014, 41394/2014, 41422/2014, 41427/2014, 41428/2014, 41858/2014, 43815/2014, 43963/2014, 44306/2014, 44527/2014, 44742/2014, 44835/2014, 45486/2014, 46766/2014, 47103/2014, 47105/2014, 47106/2014, 47107/2014, 47608/2014, 47731/2014, 47821/2014, 47860/2014, 47913/2014, 48577/2014, 48880/2014, 49567/2014, 50260/2014, 50533/2014, 51294/2014, 51930/2014, 51931/2014, 51932/2014, 52760/2014, 53854/2014, 54059/2014, 54083/2014, 54236/2014

D DATED 03.02.2003 AND ANN-F DATED 18.06.2014 ISSUED BY THE R-2 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATED TO 1.37 ACRES OF LAND IN SY.NO.72/2 OF THANISANDRA VILLAGE, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK AND ETC. IN W.P. NO. 47821/2014: BETWEEN: SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O SRI NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/A NO.78, K NARAYANAPURA ANJANEYA TEMPLE MAIN ROAD SHIVARAMAKARANATH

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

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

1 Bigha sold from village Kilokari for consideration of Rs. 2,07,500/-. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the learned Reference Court held that there was a possibility that the sale deed was executed at inflated prices to claim a higher compensation since it was a known fact that such schemes of acquisition become known to the residents

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

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

1 Bigha sold from village Kilokari for consideration of Rs. 2,07,500/-. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the learned Reference Court held that there was a possibility that the sale deed was executed at inflated prices to claim a higher compensation since it was a known fact that such schemes of acquisition become known to the residents

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

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

1 and 2 companies and certain other individuals as Directors of 4 listed companies, 3 subsidiaries of one listed company and an unlisted company is bad in law since the Joint APLs merely represents the estate of PDB and thus, had no rights to seek appointment of Directors in companies in which PDB was not a "Member". Further, without prejudice

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