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

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 (Central) vs. K.V. Srinivasa Rao

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

Section 151 CPC for stay of Execution/Revocation Case No.34 of 2017 pending in the court of District Judge-III at Jamshedpur. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted that delay may be condoned and stay of Execution Case may be granted after hearing the parties, be pleased to set aside the award. 9. Heard, learned counsel

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

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

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

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 21St July, 2022. Appearance :- Mr. Sumit Ghosh, Adv. ….For Appellant. Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. ….For Respondent

condonation of delay is allowed. ITAT/111/2022 : This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ for brevity) is directed against the 2 order dated 21st February, 2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, “B” Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.2067/Kol/2017 for the assessment years 2007-08. The appellant/assessee has raised

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV, vs. Parnika Constructions P. Ltd.,

Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

delay of 66 days in preferring the appeal is condoned as no counter affidavit has been filed by the Insurance Company and the reason assigned by the appellants is acceptable to the court. Accordingly I.A. No. 602 of 2021 is allowed. M.A. No. 73 of 2014 1. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. -2- 2. The instant Miscellaneous Appeal

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 COMMIR.OF INCOME-TAX A.P.-II.HYD. vs. MOHD.SIDDIQ PROP.M/S.HUMA ATCHANDRADIO.

In the result, Question No

17 days. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Department while rejecting the Cross-Objections on the ground of delay and that no petition was filed by the assessee seeking condonation of such delay. In the above set of facts and circumstances, the assessee has sought the above referred questions of law for opinion of this Court. The learned counsel

THE COMMISSIONER OF I.T.-I, HYDERABAD. vs. M/S. AKASH CABLE TV NETWORK PVT.LTD., HYDERABAD.

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

delay in refilling is condoned. ITA 252/2012 ITA 253/2012 ITA 258/2012 We have heard Mr. Santhanam in these appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟, for short) impugning the common order dated 26.8.2011. The appeals relate to assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05. In the years in question, the appellant, a private limited

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-III vs. Smt. Raj Kumari

Accordingly are partly allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

17 and 20 from the same and submits that passage of time would not debar respondent no. 1 from prosecuting remedy under section 98 of HTAL Act. He relies on Babu Parasu Kaikadi (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Babu (dead) by L.Rs. reported in AIR 2004 SC 754 to submit that as observed in the same, claim for surrender of tenancy

M/S MAQSOD AND CO HYDERABAD vs. THE COMMNER OF INCOME TAX HYD

17 19. Lodging of FIR certainly proves the factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should

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

Majeti Madhavi vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Central)

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

condone the delay of days 42 in filing the above appeal, as otherwise the Petitioner/Appellant will be put to irreparable loss and severe hardship. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI DUNDU SASHANK, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of SRI DUNDU MANMOHAN Counsel for the Respondent: SRI K. MAMATA CHOUDARY, Learned Standing Counsel for the lncome Tax Department The Court delivered

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

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

17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Coal India Limited and Another Vs. Ujjal Transport Agency and Others; (2011) 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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

17. As to the tests of the likelihood of bias what is relevant is the reasonableness of the apprehension in that regard in the mind of the party. The proper approach for the Judge is not to look at his own mind and ask himself, however, honestly, “Am I biased?”; but to look at the mind of the party before