Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Central 4 vs Citron Infraprojects Limited

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Suresh Kumar

Table of Content
1. delay condonation request acknowledged. (Para 1 , 2)
2. context of the appeals clarified. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. substantial question of law regarding approval under section 153d. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. itat observed lack of application of mind. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
5. analysis of rushed approvals noted. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
6. mandatory approval condition emphasized. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
7. judicial precedents highlight need for proper approval procedures. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
8. examples of non-application of mind provided. (Para 24 , 25 , 26)
9. mechanical nature of approvals criticized. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
10. reinforcement of previous findings against mechanical approvals. (Para 31 , 32 , 33)
11. further judicial support against overextensions of approval processes. (Para 34 , 35 , 36)
12. consistency demanded in sanctions across cases. (Para 37 , 38)
13. appeal based on flawed approvals dismissed. (Para 40 , 41 , 42)
14. final ruling on appeals and costs. (Para 43 , 44)

ORAL JUDGMENT:- (per M. S. Sonak, J)

1. Heard Mr Suresh Kumar for the Appellants/Applicants.

2. Mr Suresh Kumar states that notices have been served upon the Respondents in all these matters. He points out