THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JOCIL LIMITED

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: BATTU DEVANAND,A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA

condone the delay of (179) days in representing the I.T.T.Aand to pass Counsel for the Appellant; 1. ELEVATED AS JUDGE Counsel for the Respondent: 1.ELEVATED AS JUDGE The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL N0.147 of 2018 JUDGMENTif

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S CCL PRODUCTS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench, Visakhapatnam Preferred Against The Income Tax Appeal Cit (A)-1, Guntur In Visakhapatnam Order Of The Commissioner Of Dated 06.04.2018 Bearing Appeal No. Ita No.10198/Cit{A)-1/Gnt/2014-15 & Preferred Against The Order Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1 (1), Guntur In Aaacc9552G/A.Y.2014-2015/Ito/Guntur, Pan/Gir.No: Dated 28.12.2017. Between: The Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Guntur. ...Appellant & M/S Ccl Products (India) Pvt. Ltd, Duggirala, Guntur District - 522 330 ...Respondent

condone the delay of 198 days in representing the I.T.T.A. and to pass lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to frame the following questions of law as additional substantial questions of law for adjudication

The Prl Commissioner of Income Tax vs. CCL Products

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench, Visakhapatnam, Preferred Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Guntur, Dated 30.11.2016 Bearing Appeal No. Ita No. 17/15-16/Cit(A-1)/Gnt/2011-12 Which Was Preferred Against The Order Of The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad In Pan/Gir.No:Aaacc9552G/A.Y.2011-2012/Ito/Hyd, Dated 29.01.2015. Between: The Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Guntur. ...Appellant & M/S. Ccl Products (India) Ltd., Duggirala, Guntur District -522 330. ...Respondent

condone delay of 107 days in representing ITTAand to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. ELEVATED AS JUDGE Counsel for the Respondent: 1. KARAN TALWAR The Court made the following; Appeal under section 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL N0.291 of 2018 JUDGMENT

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. SHRI. DHANEKULA RAMA RAO, VIJAYAWADA

The appeal is dismissed as

Bench: NINALA JAYASURYA,TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

condone the delay of (134) days in representing the I.T.T.A. ' j Gounsel for the Appellant f % - r* : Sri Vamsi Krishna Bodapati, representing Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi (Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department) Counsel for the Respondent : Sri C.P.Ramaswami The Court made the following; APHC010393172017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3526] r-'' WEDNESDAY

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S.BOMMIDALA ENTERPRISES(P) LTD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam Bench, Visakhapatnam, Preferred Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Guntur, Dated 30.03.2012 Bearing Appeal No. Ita No.0320, 0319 & 0279/Cit(A)/Gnt/2011-12, Which Was Preferred Against The Order Of The Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-2, Guntur Pan/Gir.No: In Aaacb9064G/A.Y.2009-2010/Ito/Guntur, Dated 30.12.2011. Between: The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Guntur ...Appellant/Respondent & M/S Bommidala Enterprises (P) Ltd, D.No. 8-24-53, Mangalagiri Road Guntur ...Respondent/Appellant

condone the delay of 174 days in representing the ITTA and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1.ELE Counsel for the Respondent: 1.DUNDU MANMOHAN The Court made the following: J f 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL APPEAL N0.82 of 2018 JUDGMENTirPer Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu

THE PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI KOUNDINYA EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY

Bench: C.PRAVEEN KUMAR,CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

7. Estoppel by conduct does not of itself constitute an independent cause of action. The assumed fact or state of affairs (which one party is estopped from denying) may be relied upon defensively or it may be used aggressively as the factual foundation of an action arising under ordinary principles with the entitlement to ultimate relief being determined