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 delay in filing ITA NO. 453/2012 (CIT v. Arvinder Singh) it was claimed that there was only 22 days' delay in filing the appeal. It was stated in the said application that initially no appeal was preferred against the impugned order dated 5th April 2007 of the ITAT as at that stage “it was considered more appropriate

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

Accordingly are partly allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

delay. 38. He submits that learned Single Judge although purportedly referred to cases cited above, considered those oblivious of underlying principle. The matters require re-appreciation and reconsideration. 16. He further submits, may be that an objection to maintainability of the appeals is sought to be raised, however, the same having been raised after admission of the appeals, it loses

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

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

Section 151 CPC for stay of Execution/Revocation Case No.34 of 2017 pending in the court of District Judge-III at Jamshedpur. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted that 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

The Commissioner of Income Tax-V, vs. Sri. P.Krishna

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

20 MACMA No.301 of2010: Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against the order and decree dated.7.8.2007, in OP.No.3203 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. Between: National lnsurance Company Limited,, Rep.by its Divisional Manager, Twin Cities Complex, HYD. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ,| Baby Kandula Vinitha, D/o late Veeranjaenyulu

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Sind Coop. Urban Bank Ltd.,

The appeal of the State is allowed and the appeal of the applicants

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

section (3) is concerned, the owner should be holding the property under a registered deed, with intention to cultivate the same and his total holdings should be within the ceiling limits of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Definitely, the principal cultivation as required for an exclusion, or personal cultivation under S.3(2) and an intention to cultivate under

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- IT and TP vs. M/s. Louis Berger International Inc.,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page 50 of 137 of the declared value on ―certain reasons‖ which could include the grounds specified in sub-clauses (a) to (f) in clause (iii) of the Explanation. 16.7. The proper officer, on a request made by the importer, has to furnish and intimate to the importer in writing

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s. Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page 50 of 137 of the declared value on ―certain reasons‖ which could include the grounds specified in sub-clauses (a) to (f) in clause (iii) of the Explanation. 16.7. The proper officer, on a request made by the importer, has to furnish and intimate to the importer in writing

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

condonation of delay in filing the return under Section 119 of the Act. It is further submitted that Section 148 of the Act provides a remedy to the revenue and is not a remedy to the assessee. It is also submitted that proceeding under Section 148 can be initiated only in respect of such income which escapes assessment

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, vs. M/s. V.Dhana Reddy AND Co.,

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

10 I,................................. .......solemnly declare that the particulars given above are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature or Thumb-Impression of the Applicant 15. The aforesaid declaration claiming compensation in accordance with the second schedule of the MV Act, 1898 is not in SR-48 on which, the application under Section

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

10)                 First Appeal No. 275/2012 & ors. contention,   he   placed   reliance   on   the   case   of  “Devising   Vs.  Vikramsingh and others” (AIR 2008 MP 18), wherein the  Full Bench held that mere carrying two pillion riders in violation  of Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not amount to  contributory negligence.  Breach of Section 128 must have casual  connection   with   occurrence

The Commissioner of Income Tax-3 vs. M/s. Rockwell Collins (India) Enterprises PVt. Ltd.,

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

condoned the delay and directed CIT(A) to re-hear the matter on merits. The CIT(A)-II under order dated 27.02.2009 rejected the appeal for non-payment of admitted tax as required under Section 249(4) of the Act. The Assessee thereafter preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, while rejecting the contention of the Assessee as regards

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Chirla Rama Reddy

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Delay condoned. Date of order: 30-7-2018 I.T.A. No.798/2006 The Commissioner of Income-Tax & Anr. vs. Sri K.Gopal 5/22 Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated February 9, 2011 should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases under the Income

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Voith Turbo Pvt Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Delay condoned. Date of order: 30-7-2018 I.T.A. No.168/2006 The Commissioner of Income-Tax & Anr. vs. Sri Anil Kabra 5/22 Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated February 9, 2011 should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases under

Majeti Madhavi vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Central)

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

condone the delay of days 42 in filing the above appeal, as otherwise the Petitioner/Appellant will be put to irreparable loss and severe hardship. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI DUNDU SASHANK, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of SRI DUNDU MANMOHAN Counsel for the Respondent: SRI K. MAMATA CHOUDARY, Learned Standing Counsel for the lncome Tax Department The Court delivered

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

10 there. There is no reason to disbelieve, at least what is apparently recorded therein, the document being a public document, maintained in the manner indicated above, even in the absence of Constable Amarnath Yadav, who got the Entry made and one who ought to have been ideally produced by the Insurer. What cannot be ignored is the fact that

Commissioner of Income tax-V, vs. Sri Ravinder Singh Arora (PAN ABQPA4166N)

The appeals are dismissed and the pending cross objections are disposed

delay of 50 days in re-filing the appeals is condoned. ITA Nos. 365, 366, 367, 368, 371 & 372 of2013 Page of 6 2. The applications are disposed of ITA No.365/2013 ITA No.366/2013 & CM No.23640/2015 ITA No.367/2013 & CM No.23644/2015 ITA 368/2013 & CM No.23646/2015 ITA No.371/2013 & ITA No.372/2013 & CM No.23642/2015 3. The question framed in the present appeals by the order

EVEREST ORGANICS LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF I.T., HYDERABAD

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

20 (1987) 4 SCC 611 37 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 43. The principal argument of the assessee is that all these orders were passed by the AO at the dictate of the superior authority whereas according to the Revenue, the DIT (Inv.) was just monitoring the investigation as the matter was under consideration before the Supreme Court