M/s. PLL-PCL Joint Venture vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed, the delay of one year

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

section 142(1), the assessee ultimately filed the return of income for all the years, declaring a loss. 3.1 The assessee filed four different appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which came to be dismissed by order dated 23.02.2004. Thereafter, he preferred appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 24.02.2006, which were delayed by 1 year

The Commissioner of Income TAx-IV, vs. M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises (India) Limited

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

11. I most humbly say and submit that thereafter the occupant of the land in question was paid to hand over the possession as per notice under section 10 (five) of the act and therefore, the position (sic. possession) of the land in question was taken over by drawing Panchnama on 30.04.1991 is provided under section

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

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

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 [Central] vs. Smt P Sujana

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

11. Section 154 of the Act reads thus: “154. Rectification of mistake.— (1) xxxxx (2) Subject to the other provisions of this section, the authority concerned— (a) may make an amendment under sub- section (1) of its own motion, and (b) shall make such amendment for rectifying any such mistake which has been brought to its notice by the assessee

COMMR OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/S TCI HI-WAYS PVT LTD., SECUDERABAD

Bench: Entering Into The Merit Of The Main Petition

Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 266 days in each case in all the aforesaid Civil Miscellaneous Petitions, therefore, this Court is of the view that before entering into the merit of the main petition, 2 consideration is to be given with respect to the delay condonation applications. 2. The instant interlocutory applications have been

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. K.C.P Limited

Bench: Entering Into The Merit Of The Main Petition

Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 266 days in each case in all the aforesaid Civil Miscellaneous Petitions, therefore, this Court is of the view that before entering into the merit of the main petition, 2 consideration is to be given with respect to the delay condonation applications. 2. The instant interlocutory applications have been

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV, vs. M/s. Prabhat AGri Bio Tech Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

delay of 58 days is condoned. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/02/2026 at 12:29:00 CO.PET. 475/2011 & CRL.O.(CO.) 6/2016 2 of 7 3. Application stands disposed

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

11 . is comprised, the entire extent of the scheduled properties, was accepted despite noticing that there is no substantive evidence produced on behalf of the respondents. The distinction is so far as a consideration under S.15 and Rule 18 was emphasized. From Ext.B3, it was found to have indicated the scheduled property being contiguous to reserved forest. The crops

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

Maheswara Educational Society, vs. Director of Income Tax (Exemptions)

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 10(23C) (iii ad) of the Act is concerned. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) as also the ITAT ought to have allowed the appeal and condoned the delay considering the bona fide and reasonable grounds explained by the app,eltant. According to the learned counsel for the appellant

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

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

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

Accordingly are partly allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

11. Mr. Dhorde, particularly emphasizes the case of “Sita Sahu and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and others” reported in (2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 340, comes quite close to present situation on facts, wherein he submits under tenancy and land laws, lapse of 40 years has been considered certainly not to be a reasonable time for exercise of powers

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

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

11 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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 15'1 of C P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo( of the petition, the High Court may be pleased vacate the interim stay order, passed in MACMAMP No.7551/2008,in MACMASR No.30621/2008 dated'14. 1 1.2008. Counsel for the Appellant :SRl. T.RAMULU Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : ANNAPURNA SREERAM Counsel forthe Respondent No.2

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

11)                 First Appeal No. 275/2012 & ors. prays   for   enhancement   of   compensation   by   allowing   Cross­ objections and First Appeal No.275 of 2012. 15. At   the   stage   of   argument,   with   consent   of   both  parties, the delay in filing Cross­objections by the claimant in  First Appeal No. 1138 of 2018 and First Appeal No. 1137 of 2018,  is condoned.  Otherwise also, the minor