COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. RASA AGROTECH PRIVATE LTD.

Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

condonation of the delay in filing and re-filing two appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) challenging the common impugned order dated 5th April 2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („ITAT‟) in I.T(SS).A.No.352/Del/1997 and I.T(SS).A.No.104/Del/1997 relating to the block period 1st April

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S IJM [INDIA] INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

condone the delay in filing this appeal. The application, IA NO.GA/1/2017 [OLD No:GA/1771/2017] stands disposed of accordingly. RE: ITAT/201/2017 This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (the Act, in brevity) is directed against the order dated 27.7.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Hyderabad (Tribunal

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sri N.Sai Baba Naidu

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application is disposed of. ITA 319/2012 On 30.08.2012 the following substantial question of law was framed by this Court : “Was the Tribunal correct in holding that the rent received by the appellant was assessable as „income from other sources‟?” ITA 319/2012 Page 2 of 9 2. The assessee is an individual carrying

SLS Developers vs. The Income Tax Officer

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Income Tax (Appeals) would go unchallenged which could have far reaching ramificrltions, so far as business of appellant is concerned. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that in any casr), the delay is only around 202 days which cannot be said to be an inordinate delay and the authorities have also been vested with the' powers to condone

Commissioner of Income TAx-II, Visakhapatnam. vs. Pentakota Nageswara Rao

condonation of delay) UNION OF INDIA THR. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE ..... Appellant Versus GAURI SHANKAR AND ORS. …Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioners: Mr Rahul Chaudhary, Sr. Standing Counsel for ITD Mr Rakesh Kumar, CGSC For the Respondents: Mr Rakesh Gupta, Ms Poonam Ahuja, Mr Somil Agarwal, Mr Rohit Kumar Gupta and Ms Monika Ghai, Advocates Mr Akshay

Commissioner of Income Tax-I, vs. Agriculturl Market Committee

The appeal stands dismissed on the ground of low tax effect

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 11Th May, 2022. Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. ….For Appellant Ms. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : We Have Heard Ms. Smita Das Dey, Learned Standing Counsel Appearing For The Appellant/Revenue & Ms. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Learned Advocate Appearing For The Respondent/Assessee. There Is A Delay In Filing The Appeal & This Application Being Ga/1/2011 (Old No. Ga/1658/2011) Has Been Filed For Condonation Of Delay. There Was A Condition Imposed By The Division Bench Of This Court On 17Th August, 2011 That The Appellant Shall Pay A Cost Of Rs.10,000/- To The Counsel For The Respondent. This Condition Has Not Been Complied With.

condonation of delay stands allowed. ITAT/154/2011 This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 31st October 2005 in ITA Nos. 436 & 474/Kol/2002 for the assessment year 1998-99. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration :- i) Whether, on the facts

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV, vs. Parnika Constructions P. Ltd.,

Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

delay of 66 days in preferring the appeal is condoned as no counter affidavit has been filed by the Insurance Company and the reason assigned by the appellants is acceptable to the court. Accordingly I.A. No. 602 of 2021 is allowed. M.A. No. 73 of 2014 1. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. -2- 2. The instant Miscellaneous Appeal

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Best India Tobacco Suppliers Private Limited,

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

condonation of delay. 5. On merits, it has been argued that the learned Single Judge has abdicated in not noticing the report of the Enforcement officer much less the assessment order. In other words, the respondents/petitioners did not place on record the copy of the assessment order which was a clincher to the controversy in dispute. Infact the partners

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K.V. Srinivasa Rao

Accordingly, the instant appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed

delay may be condoned and stay of Execution Case may be granted after hearing the parties, be pleased to set aside the award. 9. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award. It appears that husband of the claimant- Gopal Prasad died in a motorcycle accident, which caused on 24.06.2009 at about 09:30 A.M. near Share

The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. Smt P Sujana

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

delay of one day in filing the return ought to have been condoned and no powers under Section 154 of the Act would have been invoked. Referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, - 7 - ITO vs. Volkart Brothers reported in (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) which has been quoted

PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX-2 vs. JEEVAN SHAKTHI CHIT FUND PVT LTD.,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

condoned. The applications are disposed of. ITA 56/2015 ITA 167/2015 ITA 168/2015 ITA 169/2015 ITA 170/2015 1. In these five appeals, the revenue is aggrieved by an order dated Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified 09.11.2012 of the ITAT. Though there is a delay it is stated that it was due to delay in re-filing the appeal

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, vs. Prasad Film Laboratories Limited,

business R/o Plot No.280, Gurukrupa Palace, Near Haldiram Factory. Bhandara Road, Nagpur.     Respondents. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15219 OF 2010 (New India Assurance Co. Vs.  Sagar Ramesh Barhate) AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3841 OF 2018 (Sagar Ramesh Barhate Vs. New India Assurance Co.) WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2757 OF 2018 IN X­OBJECTION (ST.) NO. 29692 OF 2017 (Sagar Ramesh Barhate

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt. Raj Kumari

Accordingly are partly allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Business, Both R/o Erandwane, Pune Tq & Dist. Pune 2-c) Late Sunita Prakash Abad (Deceased) Through here Legal heirs 2-d) Ajay Prakash Aad Age 38 years, Occu : Nil R/o 45, Avalon Meadows Lane, East Amherst NY 14051 USA 2-e) Anjali Moulson Age 34 years, Occu Household, R/o 127 Niagara Trail, Georgetown Ontario L7GOA6, Canada 2-f) Prakash Laxmichand

M/S MAQSOD AND CO HYDERABAD vs. THE COMMNER OF INCOME TAX HYD

income and the expenses incurred in the treatment. 11. On behalf of the owner, no witness was produced. The Insurer produced in the witness-box, Ravindra Pandey, DW-1, a private investigator and Dinesh Chandra Tiwari, a record keeper in the office of the S.S.P., Kanpur Nagar, as DW-2. Documentary evidence was also produced on behalf of the Insurer

Commissioner of Income Tax-2, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

delay of 32 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. Main cases This order shall dispose of two income tax appeals i.e. ITA No. 407 of 2011 and ITA No. 33 of 2012 as the issue involved in both the DIVYANSHI 2023.03.03 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/order

THE COMMIR.OF INCOME-TAX A.P.-II.HYD. vs. MOHD.SIDDIQ PROP.M/S.HUMA ATCHANDRADIO.

In the result, Question No

business of liquor. For the assessment year 1982-83, the assessee was levied with penalty under Section 271(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) for concealment of income amounting to Rs.8,29,966/- on three counts as mentioned below: a) Refundable empty bottle deposit Rs.5,19,329/- b) Packing and servicing charges Rs.1

The Director of Income Tax, (Exemptions) vs. Royal Education Society

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

business of banking by Reserve Bank of India under Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The assessee filed the return of income under Section 143(1) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2007-08 on 31.10.2007 and declared total income of Rs.40,77,27,150/-. However, no order of assessment was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, vs. M/s Trinity Advanced Software Labs Private Limited,

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

BUSINESS SERVICES (INDIA) PVT., LTD., THE RESIDENCY, 7TH FLOOR 133/1, RESIDENCY ROAD BANGALORE 560025 PAN:AAFCA 0037R. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HIMANSU SHEKAR SINHA, ADV.,) - - - 2 THIS I.T.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 18.07.2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.41/BANG/2010, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, PRAYING TO: I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS