PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products Ltd., [ITA No.36/2009, D.D. 29.10.2010] has held thus: “9. What Section 153A contemplates is that, notwithstanding

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products Ltd., [ITA No.36/2009, D.D. 29.10.2010] has held thus: “9. What Section 153A contemplates is that, notwithstanding

THE PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products Ltd., [ITA No.36/2009, D.D. 29.10.2010] has held thus: “9. What Section 153A contemplates is that, notwithstanding

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products Ltd., [ITA No.36/2009, D.D. 29.10.2010] has held thus: “9. What Section 153A contemplates is that, notwithstanding

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products Ltd., [ITA No.36/2009, D.D. 29.10.2010] has held thus: “9. What Section 153A contemplates is that, notwithstanding

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products Ltd., [ITA No.36/2009, D.D. 29.10.2010] has held thus: “9. What Section 153A contemplates is that, notwithstanding

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products Ltd., [ITA No.36/2009, D.D. 29.10.2010] has held thus: “9. What Section 153A contemplates is that, notwithstanding

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products Ltd., [ITA No.36/2009, D.D. 29.10.2010] has held thus: “9. What Section 153A contemplates is that, notwithstanding

MRS. PREMALATHA PAGARIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, order dated 23

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:23/02/2017 PASSED IN ITA NO.1800/BANG/2016, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010, PRAYING TO: A) TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AS STATED ABOVE AND ANSWER THE SAME IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. B) TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS TO THE EXTENT AGAINST

ALTIMETRIK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE TO THE EXTENT QUESTIONED HEREIN, THE COMMON ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 23/12/2016 BY THE ITAT, BENGALURU BENCH ‘C’, BENGALURU, IN IT(TP)A Nos. 36 & 27/BANG/2011 AND C.O. No.219/BANG/2015 (ANNEUXRE-G) & ETC., THESE I.T.As. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS

M/S. THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION (R) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeals are allowed

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 4.06.2024 PASSED IN ITA Nos.699 AND 702/BANG/2024, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 AND 2014-15 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE TRIBUNAL ORDER TO THAT EXTENT HELD AGAINST THE APPELLANT AS BAD IN LAW, IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE 'C' BENCH

MOLEX INDIA TOOLING PVT. LTD., vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW AS STATED ABOVE. SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.(TP)A NO.839/BANG/2009 DATED DECEMBER 23, 2016; ANNEXURE “A”. DIRECT THE TRIBUNAL TO HEAR THE APPEAL BEARING NO. IT(TP)A NO. 839/BANG/2009 ON MERITS & ETC. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS

ING VYSYA BANK LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is dismissed answering the question raised in the appeal

Bench: B.MANOHAR,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

delay of five days in preferring this appeal under section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Notice had been issued to the respondent – revenue represented by Sri. K V Aravind, learned standing counsel for the revenue. 3. We have heard Sri. K S Ramabhadran, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. K V Aravind, learned standing counsel

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI BELIMATHA MAHA SAMSTHANA SOCIO

Bench: B.MANOHAR,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

delay of 86 days is condoned and the application is ordered. 2. Respondent is served and represented by Sri A. Shankar, learned counsel. 3. This appeal is filed under Section 260

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.

Accordingly, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,VINEET KOTHARI

260-A of the Act. The scheme of the Act contemplates mechanism to set right the error, if any committed by the Assessing Officer. We cannot give our acceptability to the arguments advanced by the revenue contrary to the well established machinery provided under the Act. It is an attempt to deviate from the scheme of the Act, having noticed

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S I G PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED

The appeals are disposed of and the application for

Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD,T.M.NADAF

SECTION 260 A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, IN MP.NO.47/BANG/2022) IN ITA NO.1317/BANG/2018) DATED 30.05.2024 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006/2007 ANNEXURE A AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL

M/S. THE KOLAR & CHICKBALLAPUR vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 27.02.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.351/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007 PRAYING TO 1. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. 2. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF - 2 - THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 27.02.2015 BEARING ITA NO.351/BANG/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. GOLF VIEW HOMES LTD

Appeal is disposed of in same terms

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

260-A of Income Tax Act 1961, arising out of order dated 21.11.2014, passed in ITA.No.1252/Bang/2012, for the Assessment year 2006- 2007. Date of Judgment:16.07.2018 in ITA No.107/2015 The Commissioner of Income-Tax and Anr. Vs. M/s Golf View Homes Ltd., 2 This ITA coming on for Admission this day, Dr.Vineet Kothari, J., delivered the following: JUDGMENT Sri.K.V.Aravind