THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. MRS ASHA LATHA

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

260A of the Income Tax Act R/w Section 114 of CPC, praying for review of the order dated 16-08-2011 passed in WTA No. 7 of 2007, on the file of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore. This Review Petition coming on for orders this day, N KUMAR J., made the following

THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. MAJOR P EBENEZER

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

260A of the Income Tax Act R/w Section 114 of CPC, praying for review of the order dated 16-08-2011 passed in WTA No. 8 of 2007, on the file of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore. This Review Petition coming on for orders this day, N KUMAR J., made the following

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

260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 05.08.2011 PASSED IN ITA NO. 160/BANG/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND ETC., THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, D V SHYLENDRA KUMAR.J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 J U D G M E N T There is a delay of five days in preferring

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI MOHD.ASADULLA

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

260A of the Income Tax Act praying for review of the order dated 24-08- 2011 passed in ITA No.1311 of 2006, on the file of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore. This Review Petition coming on for orders this day, N KUMAR J., made the following:- O R D E R The Revenue is seeking to review

TH COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI M M ANANTHAMURTHY

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, praying for review of the order dated 24.8.2011 passed in ITA No. 1320 of 2006 on the file of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore. This Review Petition coming on for orders this day, N KUMAR J., made the following:- ` O R D E R The Revenue is seeking to review

M/S HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as

Bench: JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA,S.SUJATHA

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short), by the assessee challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bengaluru Bench (for short, ‘ITAT’) for the Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2008-09. 2. The following substantial questions of law are raised in ITA Nos.100025-27/2017: i) Whether in law the Tribunal was right in refusing

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

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’ for short) against the order dated 27.02.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Bangalore (‘Tribunal’ for short) relating to the assessment year 2006-07. 2. The appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether in law, the authorities below were justified in approving

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SHRI RAMESH RAMACHANDRA RAO,

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

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the IT Act”) is filed by the appellants–Revenue challenging the order dated 14.02.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, in ITA No.160/Bang/2021, (for short, “the Tribunal”) relating to the Assessment Year 2011–12. Along with the appeal, I.A. No.2/2024 has been filed seeking condonation of a delay

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SMT. B. SUMANGALADEVI,

Appeal is allowed

Bench: K.BHAKTHAVATSALA,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Revenue, questioning the legality of the order dated 1.10.2004 made in ITA No.77/PNJ/2002 on the file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Panaji Bench at Panaji, confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), at Belgaum. 2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the Appeal

SMT RINKU CHAKRABORTHY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari W.P.No.40052/2018 (T-It) Between

CONDONE THE DELAY & ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRLY. HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: Date of Order 24-09-2018 W.P.No.40052/2018 Smt. Rinku Chakraborthy Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2/5 ORDER Mrs. Vani H, Adv. for Petitioner. The petitioner/assessee-Smt.Rinku Chakraborthy has filed this writ petition in this Court on 07.09.2018 aggrieved

JINESH (HUF) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

condoning the delay. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'SUSHIL KUMAR MEHTA VS. GOBIND RAM BOHRA (DEAD) THROUGH HIS LRS (1990) 1 SCC 193, 'PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO. LTD VS. STATE OF KERALA', (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC), 7 'CIT VS. MR.P.FIRM, MUAR', (1965) 56 ITR 67 9SC), 'BHANDARI METALS VS. SATE OF KARNATAKA

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CYBER PARK DEVELOPMENT

In the result, the appeal fails

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the revenue. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2007-08. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court vide order dated 09.03.2015 on the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether

M/S THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2007-08. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court on the following substantial questions of law: "(1) Whether the Tribunal is right in applying

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. ST. GEORGE

Appeal is dismissed at the stage of

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,N.KUMAR

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arising out of order dated 03.01.2014 passed in ITA No.783/Bang/2013, for the Assessment Year 2009-10 praying to : (i) Decide the foregoing question of law and/or such other questions of law as may be formulated by the Hon’ble Court as deemed fit. (ii) Set aside the appellate order dated 03.01.2014 passed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI M JAGADEESH KUMAR

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

260A, 268A – Instruction No.3 of 2011, dated 9-2-2011. The view adopted by the Delhi High Court making the circular applicable to pending matters came up before a three- Judges Bench of this Court in SLP (C) No.CC 13694 of 2011 titled CIT v. Surya Herbal Ltd. when the following order was passed on August 29, 2011: “Delay condoned

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI SATISH CHANDRA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

260A, 268A – Instruction No.3 of 2011, dated 9-2-2011. The view adopted by the Delhi High Court making the circular applicable to pending matters came up before a three- Judges Bench of this Court in SLP (C) No.CC 13694 of 2011 titled CIT v. Surya Herbal Ltd. when the following order was passed on August 29, 2011: “Delay condoned

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI RAKESH KUMAR BOHRA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

260A, 268A – Instruction No.3 of 2011, dated 9-2-2011. The view adopted by the Delhi High Court making the circular applicable to pending matters came up before a three- Judges Bench of this Court in SLP (C) No.CC 13694 of 2011 titled CIT v. Surya Herbal Ltd. when the following order was passed on August 29, 2011: “Delay condoned

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ANIL KABRA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

260A, 268A – Instruction No.3 of 2011, dated 9-2-2011. The view adopted by the Delhi High Court making the circular applicable to pending matters came up before a three- Judges Bench of this Court in SLP (C) No.CC 13694 of 2011 titled CIT v. Surya Herbal Ltd. when the following order was passed on August 29, 2011: “Delay condoned