Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

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

250 - were subject to search and ITA 132/2011 Page 2 seizure proceedings. Subsequently, the appellant and the other concerns which were subject to the search were issued with notice on 30.08.2001 under Section 158 (BC) requiring the furnishing of return of income including undisclosed income for the period 1.4.1990 to 14.2.2001. Apparently, during the course of the proceedings having

THE COMMI.OF INCOME TAX,HYD. vs. VAIBHAV

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

250-,4. of the Income Act,1967 (briefly 'the Act'hereinafter) arise out of the order dated28.0l.2002 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'A', Hyderabad (briefly 'Tribunal' herehafter) in I.T.A No.2a6/H'yd/ 2OO1 for the assessmenr year 1997-98. I I I i I 2 5. Appellant in i.T.T.ANo.58 of 2002 is an assessee under

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

Commissioenr of Income Tax vs. Dr. T. Ravi Kumar

250, the High Court has held that recording of satisfaction by AO is sine quo non for the purpose of initiating penalty under Section 271(1) (c). From the reading of the assessment order it is not clear that whether the AO was satisfied even prima facie that this claim is suitable for initiating penalty proceedings. The same, therefore

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

250-Cus. And 251- Cus. both dated 27th August 1983, issued by the central government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of the Section 4 of the Act, appointing Collector of Customs (Preventive), etc. to be the Collector of Customs for Bombay, Thane and Kolaba Districts in the State of Maharashtra did not ipso

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-II vs. M/s.Jayalakshmi Chits

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

250/­ only.” 8.6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order  of the CIT (A), revenue as well as assessee  filed   appeals   before   the   Tribunal.   The  Tribunal   after   considering   the   submissions  and material on record held that the CIT has  committed an error by allowing the short term  loss   claimed   by   the   assessee,   though   the  assessee   could  not  establish   the  factum

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S Gulf Oil Corporation Pvt. Ltd.,

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

250/­ only.” 8.6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order  of the CIT (A), revenue as well as assessee  filed   appeals   before   the   Tribunal.   The  Tribunal   after   considering   the   submissions  and material on record held that the CIT has  committed an error by allowing the short term  loss   claimed   by   the   assessee,   though   the  assessee   could  not  establish   the  factum

The Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. M/s. Manikanta Iron AND Hardware

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

250/­ only.” 8.6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order  of the CIT (A), revenue as well as assessee  filed   appeals   before   the   Tribunal.   The  Tribunal   after   considering   the   submissions  and material on record held that the CIT has  committed an error by allowing the short term  loss   claimed   by   the   assessee,   though   the  assessee   could  not  establish   the  factum

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