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

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

139(8) and Section 217 of the A.Y. 1988-89. h) Feeling aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the assessee preferred appeal for the assessment year under consideration and the Revenue had also preferred cross appeal for AY 1988-89 bearing ITA No.585/Nag/97. The ITAT after going the facts and material available on record held that

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

139(8) and Section 217 of the A.Y. 1988-89. h) Feeling aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the assessee preferred appeal for the assessment year under consideration and the Revenue had also preferred cross appeal for AY 1988-89 bearing ITA No.585/Nag/97. The ITAT after going the facts and material available on record held that

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

139(8) and Section 217 of the A.Y. 1988-89. h) Feeling aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) the assessee preferred appeal for the assessment year under consideration and the Revenue had also preferred cross appeal for AY 1988-89 bearing ITA No.585/Nag/97. The ITAT after going the facts and material available on record held that

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s. BDR Projects Pvt. Ltd.

5) To harmonise is not to destroy any statutory provision or to render it otiose”. 60. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Thirumagal Mills Ltd. (1972) 1 SCC 176, it was explained as under: “The principle which has been laid down clearly is that validation of tax which has been declared to be illegal may be done only

Commissioner of Incometax-1, Hyderabad vs. M/s. Divis Laboratories Ltd.,

The appeals are allowed

5) No return was furnished by the Assessee in spite of the receipt of the said notices. 6) Thereafter, the concerned Assessment Officer framed ex parte assessment under Section 144 of the Act and called for the information regarding total sales/ turnover made by the Assessee from the Excise and Taxation Department, Shimla and estimated the sales turnover

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mrs Justice M G Uma Criminal Appeal No. 16 Of 2013 (A) Between:

68 YEARS R/AT NO.120-B BHIMANNA GARDEN SHANTHI NAGAR SWATHI ROAD CROSS BANGALORE - 560 027 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. G. SUKUMARAN, ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCE)) AND: 1. SRI. M.B. ANWAR S/O MAHABOOB SAB AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS PROPRIETOR M/S. YASMEEN APPARELS NO.82, NAGANATHAPURA RAYASANDRA MAIN ROAD ELECTRONIC CITY POST BANGALORE - 560 100 AND ALSO NOW AT NO.268 6TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK CHAMUNDI NAGAR

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

139 11 20.1.07 23 Inspector Report of Room No.14 dt. 20.1.07 Ext.Ka 144 24 Inspector Report of Room No.15 dt. 20.1.07 Ext.Ka 148 25 Inspector Report of Room No.16 dt. 20.1.07 Ext.Ka 154 26 Inspector Report of Room No.17 dt. 20.1.07 Ext.Ka 162 27 Disclosure Statement dt. 13.1.07 Ext.Ka 1 28 Disclosure Statement dt. 11.1.07 Ext.Ka 70 29 Disclosure Statement

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMEE TAX-III vs. M/S.V.B.C.FERRO ALLOYS LTD

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

139(l).However, 1n the present case ,the question of the declaration does not arise due to the amendrnent, as the assessee is only seeking. exemption. Therefore ,the above case law is not applicable to the present case on this ground as weil. In another cq.se laut relied upon bg the appettant is that in Sree Sankaracharya tlniaersitg oJ Sanslcrit

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

5 of 22 12. The Complainant alleged that these were the blank signed Cheques which had been stolen by Respondent No. 1 Harish Bindal, on 18.12.2003, who had accompanied him in his car to Shalimar Bagh Market. He had not suspected Respondent No. 1 Harish Bindal, who is his son-in-law, of this alleged theft on the date when

The commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s Lanco Kondapalli Power (P) Ltd

5. Commissioner of Customs, Office of the Commissioner of Customs (NS-1), Jawaharlal Nehru Customs House, Nhava Sheva. …Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2091 OF 2022 Balkrishna Industries Ltd, Page 108 of 198 22nd March 2024 Saurer Textile Solutions Pvt Ltd v The State of Maharashtra & Ors & Connected Writ Petitions 1-2-oswp-1494-2023-J+.docx a company incorporated

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

5 SCC 747 3 (2004) 10 SCC 627 4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

5 SCC 747 3 (2004) 10 SCC 627 4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

5 SCC 747 3 (2004) 10 SCC 627 4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

5 SCC 747 3 (2004) 10 SCC 627 4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

5 SCC 747 3 (2004) 10 SCC 627 4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land

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

Bench: ANIS,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

5 SCC 747 3 (2004) 10 SCC 627 4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5 SCC 747 3 (2004) 10 SCC 627 4 2009 (8) SCC 582 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:05.10.2025 11:29:12 Signature Not Verified LA.APP. 59/2007 & connected Page 88 of 171 18.4 Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the market value for the acquired land of village, Kilokari cannot be treated differently from the adjacent land