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

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

D E R % 24.08.2015 ITA Nos. 453 & 464 of 2012 Page 2 of 12 CM No. 13614/2010 (for condonation of delay in filing the appeal) & CM No. 13616/2012 (for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal) in ITA No. 453/2012 CM No. 14085/2012 (for condonation of delay in filing the appeal) in ITA No. 464/2012 1. These are three

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 Commissioner of Income Tax- IV vs. M/s. Prabhat Agri Bio Tech P Ltd.

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

D G M E N T [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] ASHA MENON, J. 1. Since both the appeals have been filed against the same judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court dated 23rd February, 2015 passed in a suit filed by the respondent No.1/Satish Mathur against the two appellants, namely, M/s.Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Ashok Leyland

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-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

D E R % 10.02.2026 CO.APPL. 102/2026 (for condonation of delay) in CO.PET. 475/2011 1. The present application has been filed by the Official Liquidator [“OL”] seeking condonation of 58 days delay in filing the application under Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. For reasons stated in the application, same is allowed, and the delay of 58 days

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

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 of more than 100 acres within the district of Malabar, for which alone the exclusion above referred is applicable

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

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

Vidyananda Educational Society vs. The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemptions)II

Bench: The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Dated : 12.08.2022 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice P.Velmurugan A.S. (Md) No.152 Of 2013 & Cross. Obj(Md)No.23 Of 2022 A.S(Md)No.152 Of 2013 The Special Tahsildar (La) Adi-Dravidar Welfare Periyakulam, Theni District. ... Appellant/Referring Officer Vs. Thiru.Manikandan (Died) 2.Mrs.Sornam 3.Mrs.Kaleeswari 4.Sivakumar 5.M.Kohiladevi ... Respondents/ Claimants Nos.2 To 5 Prayer: Appeal Suit Filed Under Section 54 Of The Land Acquisition Act, To Set Aside The Judgment & Decree, Dated 20.12.2006 Made In L.A.O.P.No. 11 Of 1996, On The File Of The Land Acquisition Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court-Cum-Fast Track No.4, Periyakulam. _________ Page 1 Of 15 Https://Www.Mhc.Tn.Gov.In/Judis

D G M E N T This Appeal Suit and the Cross-Objection have been preferred challenging the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.4, Periyakulam, dated 20.12.2006 made in L.A.O.P.No.11 of 1996. 2. The appellant is the respondent and the deceased first respondent is the claimant in L.A.O.P.No.11

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