THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIAJAYAWADA vs. THE KRISHNA DISTRICT MILK PRODUCERS MUTUALLY AIDED CO -OP.,

In the result: MAC No. 734 of 2017 preferred by the insurance company

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

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal considering the evidence led by both the parties passed an award to the tune of Rs. 35,38,820/- 4 alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its actual payment in favour of the claimants fastening liability of payment of compensation upon

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

The appeal is partly allowed

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) for grant of compensation on account of the death of Sh. Vikram Singh as the result of motor vehicle accident. 3. It was alleged that Sh. Vikram Singh had died in a motor vehicle accident involving vehicle No. HP-10A- 5266 (Ford Figo Car). As per claimants

Commissioner of Income Tax-TDS, vs. M/s A P Power Generation Corporation Ltd.,

Bench: The Learned Tribunal Under Section 163A Of The Motor Vehicles Act For Getting Compensation From The Insurance Company On The Ground That Their Predecessor Died In A Road Traffic Accident Due To Rash & Negligent Driving Of The Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Duly Insured Under The Policy Of The Insurance Company. The Insurance Company Contested The Matter Before The Learned Tribunal. After Hearing The Parties The Learned Tribunal Has Awarded A Sum Of Rs.13,29,500/- In Favour Of The Claimants & The Insurance Company Is Directed To Pay

Section 166 of the M.V. Act. Thus, I think that the observation of the learned Tribunal regarding the income of the deceased in lower value to that of the statutory document i.e. the income tax certificate is erroneous. 3 Thus, I am of considered view that the just and proper compensation of this case should be assessed

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s.Lifeline Aqua Pvt Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

68 of 2011 In FIRST APPEAL NO. 14 of 2010 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK ========================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s.Alloy Nitrides Ltd

Appeals are disposed of

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 166 of the M.V. Act for awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case till its realization on account of death of Bhola Ram, the Executive Engineer in a motor vehicle accident with the case in succinct that

Commissioner of Income Tax - III vs. M/s. Kolan Engineering Constructions Private Limited

Appeals are disposed of with the aforesaid modification in the

166 of the M.V. Act on account of death of Rajendra Mawandia and Sunita Mawandia respectively, in motor vehicle accident with the case in succinct that on 30.04.2010 Sunita Patna High Court MA No.504 of 2013 dt.03-07-2018 4/14 Mawandia along with her husband Rajendra Mawandia and children were proceeding from Vellore to Rameshwaram by Tata Indica car bearing registration

Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. M/s Kolan Engineering Constructions Private Limited,

Appeals are disposed of with the aforesaid modification in the

166 of the M.V. Act on account of death of Rajendra Mawandia and Sunita Mawandia respectively, in motor vehicle accident with the case in succinct that on 30.04.2010 Sunita Patna High Court MA No.504 of 2013 dt.03-07-2018 4/14 Mawandia along with her husband Rajendra Mawandia and children were proceeding from Vellore to Rameshwaram by Tata Indica car bearing registration

The Commissioner of IncomeTax-III vs. M/S Vishwas Investments Pvt.,Limited,

166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 whereby the learned Judge awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.59,38,660/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment, New India Assurance Company Limited preferred this appeal on the ground that the learned Tribunal

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agriculture Market Committee,

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

68 of 2011 In FIRST APPEAL NO. 14 of 2010 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK ========================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

Section 166 of the Act came to be filed by the claimant through his power attorney holder Chaudhari Hareshkumar Lavjibhai and Page 2 of 10 C/FA/4881/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/12/2021 claimed compensation of Rs. 90,00,000/-. 2.2 The claimant has deposed at exhibit 58. The owner of the ST bus had given his written statement at exhibit 44A. Various

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

166 ITR 244 (Mad)] that the 22 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters Assistant Director of Inspection who was the authorised officer for the purposes of carrying out search and seizure but was not the Income Tax Officer who could pass an order under sub-section (5) of Section 132 could not retain the seized documents

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

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

166 ITR 244 (Mad)] that the 22 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters Assistant Director of Inspection who was the authorised officer for the purposes of carrying out search and seizure but was not the Income Tax Officer who could pass an order under sub-section (5) of Section 132 could not retain the seized documents

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

166 ITR 244 (Mad)] that the 22 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters Assistant Director of Inspection who was the authorised officer for the purposes of carrying out search and seizure but was not the Income Tax Officer who could pass an order under sub-section (5) of Section 132 could not retain the seized documents

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

166 ITR 244 (Mad)] that the 22 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters Assistant Director of Inspection who was the authorised officer for the purposes of carrying out search and seizure but was not the Income Tax Officer who could pass an order under sub-section (5) of Section 132 could not retain the seized documents

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

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

Appeals are allowed

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

166 23. AIR 1962 SC 1044 24. (1955) 1 SCR 1071 25. (1996 ) 3 SCC 434 26. AIR 1955 SC 58 27. (1951) S.C.R. 682 28. (1940) F.C.R. 110 29. (1995) Supp

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