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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

1) to Rule 3 is not applicable and transaction value is determined in terms of Rules 4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. 16.6. The proper officer can raise doubts as to the truth or accuracy Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page

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

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

C' BENCH, BENGALURU IN ITA NO.1372/BANG/2014 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 29.02.2016. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee. The subject

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

1) of the Act. After the Assessees filed ITA Nos. 453 & 464 of 2012 Page 3 of 12 their written submissions, fresh notices were issued to them under Section 143(2) of the Act. 4. As far as Mr. Arvinder Singh was concerned, the Assessing Officer („AO‟) completed the assessment under Section 158BC read with Section

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

condone the delay of the proceedings which is not before it as limitation for framing of reassessment order section 147/143(3) which, in terms of section 153 of the Act (as then applicable ) lapsed on 31.03.1997. 74. The Supreme Court in Popat Bahiru Govardhane v. Land Acquisition Officer29, held thus : 16. It is a settled legal proposition that

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

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

condone the delay of the proceedings which is not before it as limitation for framing of reassessment order section 147/143(3) which, in terms of section 153 of the Act (as then applicable ) lapsed on 31.03.1997. 74. The Supreme Court in Popat Bahiru Govardhane v. Land Acquisition Officer29, held thus : 16. It is a settled legal proposition that

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

condone the delay of the proceedings which is not before it as limitation for framing of reassessment order section 147/143(3) which, in terms of section 153 of the Act (as then applicable ) lapsed on 31.03.1997. 74. The Supreme Court in Popat Bahiru Govardhane v. Land Acquisition Officer29, held thus : 16. It is a settled legal proposition that

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

condone the delay of the proceedings which is not before it as limitation for framing of reassessment order section 147/143(3) which, in terms of section 153 of the Act (as then applicable ) lapsed on 31.03.1997. 74. The Supreme Court in Popat Bahiru Govardhane v. Land Acquisition Officer29, held thus : 16. It is a settled legal proposition that

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

Accordingly are partly allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

C) Indubai Subhanrao Waghmare, Age : 35 years, Occu : Household, R/o At Post Ratnapur, Tq. Washi, Dist. Osmanabad 1(D) Nandubai Sandipan Salve, Age : 45 years, Occu : Household, R/o Hasegaon (Kes), Tq. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad 1(E) Dadarao S/o Bhanudas Ingale, Age : 40 years, Occu : Agri., R/o Shelka Dhanora, Tq. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad 6 LPA-22-2008+ 2. The Tahsildar, Kallam

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 IV, vs. M/s. Prabhat AGri Bio Tech Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

C-4) + CRL.O.(CO.) 6/2016 SHAHI FASHION (P) LTD.(IN LIQN.) .....Petitioner Through: versus YOGESH TEKRIWAL & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani, Sr. Standing Counsel, Ms. Megha Bharara, Advocates for OL. Mr. Ajay Garg, Mr. Uday Garg, Advs. for Ex-director. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL O R D E R % 10.02.2026 CO.APPL. 102/2026 (for condonation of delay

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

C) of S.2(f) (1)(i) or has a building with beneficial enjoyment of appurtenant lands excluded under Clause (D) of S.2(f)(1)(i). The definition of private forest under S.2(f) for the purpose of Vesting Act, are of three categories. The first, as mentioned above, are governed by the MPPF Act and comprised in total extents

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

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

c) The appellant from the beginning had sought for an exemption under Section 10(23C) (iii ad) of the Act; d) The appellant had applied for exemption under Section L2A of the Act on 30.08.2004; and e) The gross income of the appellant crossed the Rs.1 crore Iimit as is prescribed 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

1. Sabitri Keshri, W/o Late Gopal Prasad 2. Parmendra Singh, S/o Sri Janardan Singh …. …. Respondents ….... CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through :-Video Conferencing) ......... For the Appellant : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate. For the Respondents .......... 05/06.11.2020. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Appellant- The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred this appeal against the award dated 17.02.2017 passed

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-V, vs. Sri Ravinder Singh Arora (PAN ABQPA4166N)

The appeals are dismissed and the pending cross objections are disposed

11. + ITA 371/2013 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI CENTRAL —II Appellant Through: Mr Dileep Shivpuri, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Sanjay Kumar, Junior Standing Counsel. ITA Nos. 365, 366, 367, 368, 371 & 372 of 2013 Page of 6 versus V/ INDU SURVEYORS & LOSS ASSESSORS PVT. LTD. Through: Mr Vikas Jam, Advocate. AND ITA 372/2013 12. + Respondent THE COMMISSIONER

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

11,39,550/- through the order dated 30.10.2012, marked as Annexure-A. Broadly stated, the penalty proceedings are initiated on the basis of undervaluation, resulted in estimation of turnover and details in the income tax returns filed by the dealer are contradictory. The circumstances relied on by the Revenue for imposing penalty under Section