The Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Laila Impex,

Accordingly answered against the Revenue. The appeals fail and are dismissed, without

139 (whether fixed originally or on extension) for furnishing the return of income for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1977, or the assessment year in respect of which such income first becomes chargeable to tax under this Act, whichever assessment year is later, the company exercises an option by furnishing a declaration in writing

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

4. The Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex, Sahar, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 099. 5. The Commissioner of Customs, New Custom House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001. …Respondents Page 109 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 WITH WRIT PETITION

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

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

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, it is submitted that such appointment of Directors cannot be made

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

4. M. RAMAKRSIHNA S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO.1, 1ST MAIN MUNISWAMY GOWDA LAYOUT HEBBAL KEMPAPURA BANGALORE 24 5. SUSHMA SHARMA S/O SOHAN SHARMA AGED ABOUT YEARS R/AT NO.5, S MUNISWAMY GOWDA LAYOUT HEBBAL KEMPAPURA BANGALORE - 24 6. S ANJALIDEVI D/O LATE SREERAMULU NAIDU AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.4, MUNISWAMY GOWDA LAYOUT HEBBAL KEMPAPURA BANGALORE

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agriculturel Market Committee,

In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

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

4. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer had examined the issue and made enquiries and had passed an order on the basis of material available on record and the order passed by the Assessing Officer could not be said to be suffering from the vice of non-application of mind. It is further submitted that