KTK Forest Development Corporation v. ACIT (TDS)

196 Taxmann 445High Court2011#17093 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2022.

Judgments citing KTK Forest Development Corporation v. ACIT (TDS)

M/S. Prestige Estates Projects Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 68/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sudheendra B.R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.A.Sreenivasa Rao, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 154Section 3(1)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM ITA No.67/Bang/2022: Asst.Year 2012-2013 ITA No.68/Bang/2022: Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/s.Prestige Estates Projects Ltd. The Deputy Commissioner of Prestige Falcon Tower Income-tax, Central Cir.1(1) v. No.19, Brunton Road Bangalore Bangalore North Bangalore – 560 025. PAN : AABCP8096K. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Sudheendra B.R., Advocate Respondent by : Sri.A.Sreenivasa Rao, CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 18.03.2022 Date of Hearing : 17.03.2022 O R D E R Per Bench : These appea…

M/S. Prestige Estates Projects Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 67/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sudheendra B.R., AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.A.Sreenivasa Rao, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 154Section 3(1)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM ITA No.67/Bang/2022: Asst.Year 2012-2013 ITA No.68/Bang/2022: Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/s.Prestige Estates Projects Ltd. The Deputy Commissioner of Prestige Falcon Tower Income-tax, Central Cir.1(1) v. No.19, Brunton Road Bangalore Bangalore North Bangalore – 560 025. PAN : AABCP8096K. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.Sudheendra B.R., Advocate Respondent by : Sri.A.Sreenivasa Rao, CIT-DR Date of Pronouncement : 18.03.2022 Date of Hearing : 17.03.2022 O R D E R Per Bench : These appea…

Bramhani Industries Limited, Jammalamadugu, Kadapa vs. DCIT, Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 512/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

Section 144Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 68

…d by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST. Katiji and Others reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) and the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case KTK Forest Development Corporation vs. ACIT (TDS) reported in 196 Taxmann 445. Hence it was prayed that the delay in filing the appeal was due to reasonable cause which is beyond the control of the assessee and therefore the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. However, the Ld. CIT (A) denied to condone the delay without appreciating the facts by stating that the assessee and its representatives failed to repres…

DCIT, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad vs. Bramhani Industries Limited, Jammalamadugu, Ysr Dist.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 398/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri Chandra Mohan Garga.Y. 2010-11 Bramhani Industries Limited, Vs. Dcit, Jammalamadugu. Circle-1(3), Pan: Aadcb 1666 M Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Bramhani Industries Circle-1(2), Limited, Hyderabad. Jammalamadugu. Pan: Aadcb 1666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri Gowtham Jain Revenue By Sri K.V. Aravind, Sr. Standing Counsel For Dr Date Of Hearing: 12/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/01/2022 Order

Section 144Section 234ASection 249(3)Section 68

…d by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST. Katiji and Others reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) and the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case KTK Forest Development Corporation vs. ACIT (TDS) reported in 196 Taxmann 445. Hence it was prayed that the delay in filing the appeal was due to reasonable cause which is beyond the control of the assessee and therefore the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. However, the Ld. CIT (A) denied to condone the delay without appreciating the facts by stating that the assessee and its representatives failed to repres…

Texcel Marketing Corporation, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 678/BANG/2020[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Mar 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Sri.Ganesh B.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “SMC-C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, Judicial Member ITA No.678/Bang/2020 : Asst.Year 2018-2019 M/s.Texcel Marketing Corporation The Income Tax Officer 19/3, 49, 2nd Main Road, Ward 3(2)(2) v. Nagarabhavi Main Road Bangalore. Near Shobha Hospital Prashanthnagar Bangalore – 560 040. PAN : AALFT0856C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : --- None --- Respondent by : Sri.Ganesh B.Ghale, Standing Counsel Date of Date of Hearing : 18.03.2021 Pronouncement : 19.03.2021 O R D E R This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s…

KTK Forest Development Corporation v. ACIT (TDS) (196 Taxmann 445) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax