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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

12 which sets out some of the conditions when the ―reason to doubt‖ exists. The instances mentioned in sub-clauses (a) to (f) are not exhaustive but are inclusive for there could be other instances when the proper officer could reasonably doubt the accuracy or truth of the value declared. 18. The choice of words deployed in Rule 12

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

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 applications seeking condonation of the delay in filing and re-filing

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

condonation of delay and that exercise of discretion in favour of the Appellants is untenable. The Tribunal also discussed merits of the case and dismissed the appeal on merits following Full Bench decision of Gujarat High Court. 24. The observations made by the learned Single Judge in the said judgement (Coram: A.P. Ravani, J.) about Section 10(3) declaration vesting

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

12 SCC 577 to submit that the court has ample discretion to condone the delay in filing the appeal, especially when Ashok Leyland had, with promptitude, filed the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on coming to know of the ex parte judgment. Relying on the judgement in Bhivchandra Shankar More v. Balu Gangaram More

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

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

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

Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. For reasons stated in the application, same is allowed, and the 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

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-III vs. Sri N.Sai Baba Naidu

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application is disposed of. ITA 319/2012 On 30.08.2012 the following substantial question of law was framed by this Court : “Was the Tribunal correct in holding that the rent received by the appellant was assessable as „income from other sources‟?” ITA 319/2012 Page 2 of 9 2. The assessee is an individual carrying

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K.V. Srinivasa Rao

Accordingly, the instant appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed

2) JLJR 433. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the impugned award is bad in law, as such, the instant appeal may be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that I.A. No.7561 of 2017 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with

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

section (3) is concerned, the owner should be holding the property under a registered deed, with intention to cultivate the same and his total holdings should be within the ceiling limits of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Definitely, the principal cultivation as required for an exclusion, or personal cultivation under S.3(2) and an intention to cultivate under

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

12 noon. He desired to have a set of the contents of the envelope to be sent by FAX which has been so transmitted to him. 1.3.96: Tried to contact Shri D.C.Agrawal n his telephone No.7527513 but there was no response. This was just done to have the confirmation of having received the sealed envelope as above. At about

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

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

12 noon. He desired to have a set of the contents of the envelope to be sent by FAX which has been so transmitted to him. 1.3.96: Tried to contact Shri D.C.Agrawal n his telephone No.7527513 but there was no response. This was just done to have the confirmation of having received the sealed envelope as above. At about

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

12 noon. He desired to have a set of the contents of the envelope to be sent by FAX which has been so transmitted to him. 1.3.96: Tried to contact Shri D.C.Agrawal n his telephone No.7527513 but there was no response. This was just done to have the confirmation of having received the sealed envelope as above. At about

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

12 noon. He desired to have a set of the contents of the envelope to be sent by FAX which has been so transmitted to him. 1.3.96: Tried to contact Shri D.C.Agrawal n his telephone No.7527513 but there was no response. This was just done to have the confirmation of having received the sealed envelope as above. At about

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

Accordingly, the appeal (ITAT/11/2011) stands dismissed

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

2 i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. Tribunal erred in holding that the interest subsidy amounting to Rs.212.08 lacs should be deemed as income u/s. 41(1) of the Income Tax Act and though accrued in the Assessment year 2001-02 will be charged in the Assessment Year 2002-03, inspite of the respondent