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 Income Tax I vs. M/s. Bhagiradha Chemicals AND Industries Ltd.,

The appeal is disposed of

68,953/- under normal provisions and book- profit of Rs.9,85,25,142/-. Tax was payable on book profits as per Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short). The aforementioned return was taken up for scrutiny and additions of Rs.1,00,500/- and Rs.1,17,141/- on substantive basis, and Rs.10 lacs on protective basis

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

164 CTR (Bom) 273 = (2000) 246 ITR 693 (Bom) = (2000) 113 TAXMAN 386 (Bom) 12 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters opportunity of hearing has been given to the assessee the entire annulment of assessment cannot be justified and even if certain wrong is committed the entirety of the assessment order cannot be said to be annulled. Therefore

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

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

164 CTR (Bom) 273 = (2000) 246 ITR 693 (Bom) = (2000) 113 TAXMAN 386 (Bom) 12 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters opportunity of hearing has been given to the assessee the entire annulment of assessment cannot be justified and even if certain wrong is committed the entirety of the assessment order cannot be said to be annulled. Therefore

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

164 CTR (Bom) 273 = (2000) 246 ITR 693 (Bom) = (2000) 113 TAXMAN 386 (Bom) 12 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters opportunity of hearing has been given to the assessee the entire annulment of assessment cannot be justified and even if certain wrong is committed the entirety of the assessment order cannot be said to be annulled. Therefore

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

164 CTR (Bom) 273 = (2000) 246 ITR 693 (Bom) = (2000) 113 TAXMAN 386 (Bom) 12 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters opportunity of hearing has been given to the assessee the entire annulment of assessment cannot be justified and even if certain wrong is committed the entirety of the assessment order cannot be said to be annulled. Therefore

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K. V. Srinivasa Rao

Section 145 of the Evidence Act. If a contradiction is put to the witness and it is denied by him, then his attention has to be drawn to the statement made by such witness before the Police or any other previous statement and he must be given a reasonable opportunity to explain as to why such contradiction appears

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

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 4 of the LA Act. 19.4.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 submits that so far as concerns the testimony of PW-3, Mr. Vinod Kumar (purchaser of land), the same is to be rejected as PW-3 himself admits that he was not an income tax payee in 1988 nor did he inform about purchasing

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

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

Section 4 of the LA Act. 19.4.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 submits that so far as concerns the testimony of PW-3, Mr. Vinod Kumar (purchaser of land), the same is to be rejected as PW-3 himself admits that he was not an income tax payee in 1988 nor did he inform about purchasing

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,N.TUKARAMJI

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

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

Bench: ANIS,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 23(1)(A) of the LA Act from the date of award till the date of possession as there is a gap of 3 years from the date of award to possession of the acquired land. 18.6 Learned Senior Counsel/Learned Counsel for the Appellants submit that the acquired land’s potential, urban character, and intended acquisition purpose requires