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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

132(9A) and the part of documents were sent, therefore, the very inception of the proceeding in its entirety appears to be under the control of the DDIT (Inv.). 18. In the cross objection filed by the assessee, the substantial question of law was framed by this Court on 17-9-2014 that whether the ITAT erred

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

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

132(9A) and the part of documents were sent, therefore, the very inception of the proceeding in its entirety appears to be under the control of the DDIT (Inv.). 18. In the cross objection filed by the assessee, the substantial question of law was framed by this Court on 17-9-2014 that whether the ITAT erred

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

132(9A) and the part of documents were sent, therefore, the very inception of the proceeding in its entirety appears to be under the control of the DDIT (Inv.). 18. In the cross objection filed by the assessee, the substantial question of law was framed by this Court on 17-9-2014 that whether the ITAT erred

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

132(9A) and the part of documents were sent, therefore, the very inception of the proceeding in its entirety appears to be under the control of the DDIT (Inv.). 18. In the cross objection filed by the assessee, the substantial question of law was framed by this Court on 17-9-2014 that whether the ITAT erred

Commissioner of Income Tax- IT and TP vs. M/s. Louis Berger International Inc.,

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

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 50 of 137 of the declared value on ―certain reasons‖ which could include the grounds specified in sub-clauses

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

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 50 of 137 of the declared value on ―certain reasons‖ which could include the grounds specified in sub-clauses

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 the delay in filing and re-filing two appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) challenging the common impugned order dated 5th April 2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („ITAT‟) in I.T(SS).A.No.352/Del/1997 and I.T(SS).A.No.104/Del/1997 relating to the block period 1st April

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

Serene Country Owners welfare Association vs. Income Tax Officer

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

delay is condoned. I.A. No.9 of 2019 is allowed. ITA No.155 of 2018 2. The present appeal by the Revenue challenges an order dated 16th May, 2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (ITAT) in IT(SS) A Nos.32 to 37/ CTK/2018 for the Assessment Years (AYs) 2009-10 to 2015-16. The questions sought