Sri Natakari Gopal vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and 2 Others

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 3Rd January, 2023. Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mita, Adv. ..For Appellant Mr. Pranit Bag , Adv. Mr. A. K. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Debdatta Saha, Adv. …For Respondent Re: Ga/1/2022 The Court:- Heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, Learned Advocate For The Appellant & Mr. Pranit Bag, Learned Advocate For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 1126 Days In Filing The Appeal. Though The Reasons Given In The Affidavit Are Not Convincing The Issues Involved In The Appeal Had Been Decided By This Court In Earlier Matters, This Court Exercises Discretion & Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Application Is Allowed.

section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] is directed against the order dated 15.2.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Kolkata [Tribunal] in ITA No.2467/Kol/2017 for the assessment year 2014-15 the revenue has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration : 2 1. Whether the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred

SMT. SHANTHA VIDYASAGAR ANNAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2) HYDERABAD

In the result, the orders dated 09

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) has been fired by thr: assessee against the order. dated 09.O6.2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench A,, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Tribunar). The subject matter of the appeal pertains to assessment year l_gg7 _gg. The appeal

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), vs. M/s. Vipanchi Chit Fund Ltd.,

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 23.12.2011 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA 2320/Del/2010 in respect of the assessment year 2006-07. 2. Essentially, the revenue has proposed the following questions as substantial questions of law:- ITA 569/2012 Page 2 of 6 “(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Nama Nageshwar Rao

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 260A of the Act, proposing the following questions of law: a. Whether the ITAT is justified in deleting the additions made on account of bogus long term capital gain

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. GLAND PHARMA LTD.,

In the result, the appeal (ITAT/96/2017) fails and stands

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

260A of the Income Tax Act (the ‘Act’ in brevity) is directed against the order dated 3rd February, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B-Bench, Kolkata (the ‘Tribunal’) in ITA No.94/Kol/2012 for the assessment year 2005-06. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: “a) Whether on the facts

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s. Sanghi Textiles Limited

The appeal is allowed setting aside

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

section 260A of the tncome Tax Act, 1961 aggrieved by the order dated 19-6-2009 passed in lrA.No.346t{ydto4 on the file of the tncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad bench ,A,, Hyderabad. Between: The commissioner of rncome Tax-ilr, r.T. Towers, A.c. Guards, Masab rank, Hyderabad AND ...Appeltant M/s. Sanghirextiles Limited, 4-3-3s2, Bank street, Koti