PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TEX vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWELL (P) LTD

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

260A is akin to Section 100 of the CPC, 1908.[See : Sampath Iyengar's Law of Income Tax].” (emphasis supplied) 23. In the judgment of Goodyear India Ltd.(supra), this court has held as under: 8. …… There is no scope for interference by the High Court on a finding recorded when such finding could be treated to be a finding

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRA!) -3 vs. M/S GAHOI BUILDWE!L (P) LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

260A is akin to Section 100 of the CPC, 1908.[See : Sampath Iyengar's Law of Income Tax].” (emphasis supplied) 23. In the judgment of Goodyear India Ltd.(supra), this court has held as under: 8. …… There is no scope for interference by the High Court on a finding recorded when such finding could be treated to be a finding

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ( CENTRAL)-3 vs. GAHOI BUILDWELL (P) LTD.

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

260A is akin to Section 100 of the CPC, 1908.[See : Sampath Iyengar's Law of Income Tax].” (emphasis supplied) 23. In the judgment of Goodyear India Ltd.(supra), this court has held as under: 8. …… There is no scope for interference by the High Court on a finding recorded when such finding could be treated to be a finding

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. NIIT TECHNOLOGIES LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2006-07

depreciation prior to claiming deduction under section 10B of the Act in my view does not arise at all. I agree with the contention of the appellant that facts of the instant case are distinguishable from the facts of the cited case and hold that the decision of Hon. Karnataka High Court in the case of Himmatsingkie Siede Ud.(supra

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - IV vs. BEVERAGES PVT. LTD

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity „the Act‟), the assail is to the composite order dated 25.8.2009 in ITA Nos.1884/Del/2006, 2724/Del/07 and 2038/Del/08 pertaining to the assessment years 2001-2002, 2002-03 and 2003-04 respectively passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short `the 2011:DHC:219-DB tribunal‟) by the appellant – revenue raising

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - IV vs. BEVERAGES PVT. LTD

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity „the Act‟), the assail is to the composite order dated 25.8.2009 in ITA Nos.1884/Del/2006, 2724/Del/07 and 2038/Del/08 pertaining to the assessment years 2001-2002, 2002-03 and 2003-04 respectively passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short `the 2011:DHC:219-DB tribunal‟) by the appellant – revenue raising

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - IV vs. BEVERAGES PVT. LTD

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity „the Act‟), the assail is to the composite order dated 25.8.2009 in ITA Nos.1884/Del/2006, 2724/Del/07 and 2038/Del/08 pertaining to the assessment years 2001-2002, 2002-03 and 2003-04 respectively passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short `the 2011:DHC:219-DB tribunal‟) by the appellant – revenue raising

C& C CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟ for short) impugns the order dated 26.6.2009 passed by the Income Tax Tribunal („Tribunal‟ for short) in ITA No.4000/Del/2007. The appeal relates to the assessment year 2003-04. 2. The findings of the authorities/tribunal and the reasoning portion of the impugned order is reproduced as under : “2. With regard to ground

C& CCONSTRUCTION PVT LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟ for short) impugns the order dated 26.6.2009 passed by the Income Tax Tribunal („Tribunal‟ for short) in ITA No.4000/Del/2007. The appeal relates to the assessment year 2003-04. 2. The findings of the authorities/tribunal and the reasoning portion of the impugned order is reproduced as under : “2. With regard to ground

CIT vs. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter 'Act') impugning an order dated 29th October, 2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter 'ITAT') whereby the Assessee's appeal against an order dated 1st October, 2004 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereafter ‘CIT(A)’], was allowed. By the aforesaid order dated 1st October

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL -3 vs. ORIENTAL PATHWAYS ( NAGPUR) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) in the case of Oriental Pathways (Nagpur) Pvt. Ltd. relate to Assessment Years 2009-2010 to 2013-2014 and arise from a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 28.2.2018. The impugned order upholds the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘CIT(Appeals)’ for short

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

260A of the Income Tax Act, ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 Page 2 of 23 1961 (Act, for short) have been preferred by the Revenue in the case of Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited (respondent assessee) for the Assessment Years 1989-90 and 1990-91. Relevant facts may be noticed. Assessment Year 1989-90 4. During the period relevant

CIT vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

260A of the Income Tax Act, 2012:DHC:2611-DB ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 Page 2 of 23 1961 (Act, for short) have been preferred by the Revenue in the case of Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited (respondent assessee) for the Assessment Years 1989-90 and 1990-91. Relevant facts may be noticed. Assessment Year 1989-90 4. During

ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.

The appeals are disposed of

260A of the Income Tax Act, 2012:DHC:2611-DB ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 Page 2 of 23 1961 (Act, for short) have been preferred by the Revenue in the case of Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited (respondent assessee) for the Assessment Years 1989-90 and 1990-91. Relevant facts may be noticed. Assessment Year 1989-90 4. During

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

The appeals are disposed of

260A of the Income Tax Act, 2012:DHC:2611-DB ITA Nos. 601/2011 & 602/2011 Page 2 of 23 1961 (Act, for short) have been preferred by the Revenue in the case of Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited (respondent assessee) for the Assessment Years 1989-90 and 1990-91. Relevant facts may be noticed. Assessment Year 1989-90 4. During

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is herein after referred to as „Act‟. The appeals are directed against the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as „Tribunal‟). The appeals relate to the assessment years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. The Tribunal has passed separate orders for each year, though both of them

CIT vs. TEI TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is herein after referred to as „Act‟. The appeals are directed against the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as „Tribunal‟). The appeals relate to the assessment years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. The Tribunal has passed separate orders for each year, though both of them

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL -3 vs. ORIENTAL PATHWAYS ( NAGPUR) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) in the case of Oriental Pathways (Nagpur) Pvt. Ltd. relate to Assessment Years 2009-2010 to 2013-2014 and arise from a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 28.2.2018. The impugned order upholds the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ('CIT(Appeals)' for short