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

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

37 of the Act. In support of aforesaid submissions, reference has been made to 'ITO VS. MEWALAL DWARKA PRASAD', (1989) 176 ITR 529 (SC), 'ITO VS. K.L.SRIHARI (HUF) (2001) 250 ITR 193 (SC), and 'ACIT VS. 9 RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS P. LTD.', (2007) 291 ITR 500 (SC). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that

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

Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 has been preferred by the appellants/claimants, namely, 1. Most. Mira

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

condoned.  Otherwise also, the minor age of helpless claimant  in these appeals is certainly a sufficient cause for delay in filing  Cross­objections.  Therefore, Civil Application No. 14171 of 2017  and Civil Application No. 2757 of 2018 are disposed of as allowed  and Cross­objections filed by claimant are taken on record. 16. After hearing both the sides, following points arise

M/s. Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

condonation of delay of 8 days in filing and 2 days in re-filing are allowed as the counsel for the respondent, who appears on advance notice, does not oppose the prayers. FAO(OS) (COMM) 279/2018 & CM APPL. 49432/2018 This intra-court appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('A&C Act', for short) read with

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

Commissioner of Income Tax- IT and TP vs. M/s. Louis Berger International Inc.,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

37. The Supreme Court had also adverted to the procedure of provisional assessment as embodied in Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

37. The Supreme Court had also adverted to the procedure of provisional assessment as embodied in Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. M/s.KCIL-MEIL [JV]

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

condoning the delay, noted the question of law mooted in the revision as follows: “We have heard the learned Senior Government Pleader for the Department of Commercial Taxes. It is submitted that the question of law mooted for OT.REV 212/2015 -7- consideration is as to whether the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) has the power to order remand of a case relating

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

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

condonation of delay under a wrong provision of law will not vitiate the application. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadiya Vs. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya; (2017) 9 SCC 700, has held that it is by now well settled that a mere wrong mention of the provision in the application would not prohibit a party

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. Sri Venkatesh Granites Pvt. Ltd.

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 9Th January, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. ….For Appellant Mr. Avra Majumder, Adv. Mr. Binayak Gupta, Adv. Mr. Suman Bhowmick, Adv. …For The Respondent The Court : We Have Heard Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Learned Standing Counsel Appearing For The Appellant & Mr. Avra Majumder, Learned Counsel Appearing For The Respondent/Assessee. Though There Is No Satisfactory Explanation For The Inordinate Delay Of 1018 Days In Filing The Appeal, Since We Are Inclined To Take Up The Main Appeal Itself For Consideration & To Ascertain As To Whether Any Substantial Question Of Law Arises For Consideration, We Exercise Discretion & Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal. For Such Reason, The Application Being Ia No.:Ga/1/2022 Is Allowed.

condone the delay in filing the appeal. For such reason, the application being IA No.:GA/1/2022 is allowed. 2 ITAT/241/2022 This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (the Act, for brevity) is directed against the order dated 6th September, 2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, `C’ Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in I.T.A

Serene Country Owners welfare Association vs. Income Tax Officer

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

delay is condoned. I.A. No.9 of 2019 is allowed. ITA No.155 of 2018 2. The present appeal by the Revenue challenges an order dated 16th May, 2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (ITAT) in IT(SS) A Nos.32 to 37/ CTK/2018 for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2009-10 to 2015-16. The questions sought

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

37 years. Nain’s business, as a contractor, would yield him income to the tune of Rs.9000/- per month. His wife was aged 31 years. He has two sons, one aged 10 years and the other approximately 9. Another dependent of his was Smt. Pushpa Devi, his mother aged 55 years. 7. A written statement was filed by Anil Kumar

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

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. 44. The position

C. SANYASI RAJU vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIZAG.

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,T.AMARNATH GOUD

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. 44. The position

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Samrakshna Electricals Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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. 44. The position

M/s.GVK Petro Chemicals Private Limited,(Novo Resins AND vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,

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. 44. The position