Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Nama Nageshwar Rao

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Condonation of Delay) PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel versus SATISH DEV JAIN ..... Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA ITA 23/2021 and connected matters Page 3 of 11 JUDGMENT [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] SANJEEV NARULA, J (ORAL): 1. The present appeals under Section 260A

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

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.

condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the application is allowed. ITAT/238/2022 This appeal filed by the revenue under 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

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-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

38 YEARS, W/O. THULASEEDHARAN PILLAI,, REMYA NIVAS, KANNIMELTHERIYIL, PATTAZHI VILLAGE,, PADMANABHAPURAM, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF, ATTORNEY MR. ANTONY M.P., AGED 40 YEARS,, MANIYACHER BY ADVS.SRI.G.G.MANOJ SRI.P.M.BENZIR P.VISWANATHAN (SR.)(K/000283/1986) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 CISTPDOAM PF VESTED FPRESTS (EFL), FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, VANALAKSHMI, VAZHUTHACAUDU,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS,, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

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

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

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 (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals with cases where the importer

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

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 (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals with cases where the importer

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

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

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-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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

38 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 46. The classic case which falls for consideration before the English Courts was Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal22, In the aforesaid case Lord Cottenham presided over a previous case in which a canal company brought a case in equity against a land owner. Lord Chancellor Cottenham heard the appeal against an order

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

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

38 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 46. The classic case which falls for consideration before the English Courts was Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal22, In the aforesaid case Lord Cottenham presided over a previous case in which a canal company brought a case in equity against a land owner. Lord Chancellor Cottenham heard the appeal against an order

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

38 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 46. The classic case which falls for consideration before the English Courts was Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal22, In the aforesaid case Lord Cottenham presided over a previous case in which a canal company brought a case in equity against a land owner. Lord Chancellor Cottenham heard the appeal against an order

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

38 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 46. The classic case which falls for consideration before the English Courts was Dimes v. Grand Junction Canal22, In the aforesaid case Lord Cottenham presided over a previous case in which a canal company brought a case in equity against a land owner. Lord Chancellor Cottenham heard the appeal against an order