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

13 of 76 C/LPA/94/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2021 RAVJIBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL SINCE DECD. THR'HEIRS V/s ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY U.L.C. entitled to get the benefit of Section 3 of the Repeal Act. However, there will be no order as to costs.” 38.2 These significant contextual facts are missing in the case in our hands where Sections

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 151 CPC for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal had also been filed. 16. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123; Sankar Dastidar v. Banjula Dastidar, (2006) 13 SCC 470; and, Kamlesh Babu v. Lajpat Rai Sharma, (2008) 12 SCC 577 to submit

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

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

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

Accordingly are partly allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

13. His other leg of submission is, since there is no claim by respondent no. 1 for possession within two years of dispossession pursuant to section 32 of the HTAL Act, proceeding for possession and declaration of tenancy is not maintainable. For said purpose, he refers to and relies on decision in the case of “Gangyya Khandyya Vs. Gangadhar Tanaji

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-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-V, vs. Sri. P.Krishna

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

condone the delay in filinq the cross-objections on condition that the claimant is entitled for rnlerest on the enhanced compensation from the date of filing of the cross-objecttons. 13. ln the light of the above discussion, the cross-objecto/claimant is entitled for compensation under the following heads; 1. Loss of dependency 2. Consortium 3. Funeral expenses

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 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

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/s Sri Sri Gruha Nirman India Pvt. Ltd.

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

delay in re- filing the appeal is condoned. ITA 1021/2019 & ITA 157/2023 1. These two appeals between same parties are based on similar factual and legal matrix, so taken up together for disposal. The appeal bearing ITA No. 1021/2019 pertains to the Assessment Year 2011-12 while the other appeal bearing ITA No. 157/2023 pertains to the Assessment Year

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

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

1 SCC 117, has held that the application for filing of an application for 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

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

Bench: Entering Into The Merit Of The Main Petition

1. These interlocutory applications have been preferred under 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

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

Bench: Entering Into The Merit Of The Main Petition

1. These interlocutory applications have been preferred under 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