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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

IV - Summary of accounts of diary titled as MR - 70/91 having pages 1-30. v) SET - V - Titled as MR - 72/91 showing details of payments etc. having 51 pages. vi) SET - VI - Titled as MR - 73/91 having 50 pages. vii)SET - VII - Titled as MR - 67/91 containing 11 pages representing ledger account of BECO, S.K. Jain. viii) SET - VIII - copy

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

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

IV - Summary of accounts of diary titled as MR - 70/91 having pages 1-30. v) SET - V - Titled as MR - 72/91 showing details of payments etc. having 51 pages. vi) SET - VI - Titled as MR - 73/91 having 50 pages. vii)SET - VII - Titled as MR - 67/91 containing 11 pages representing ledger account of BECO, S.K. Jain. viii) SET - VIII - copy

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

IV - Summary of accounts of diary titled as MR - 70/91 having pages 1-30. v) SET - V - Titled as MR - 72/91 showing details of payments etc. having 51 pages. vi) SET - VI - Titled as MR - 73/91 having 50 pages. vii)SET - VII - Titled as MR - 67/91 containing 11 pages representing ledger account of BECO, S.K. Jain. viii) SET - VIII - copy

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

IV - Summary of accounts of diary titled as MR - 70/91 having pages 1-30. v) SET - V - Titled as MR - 72/91 showing details of payments etc. having 51 pages. vi) SET - VI - Titled as MR - 73/91 having 50 pages. vii)SET - VII - Titled as MR - 67/91 containing 11 pages representing ledger account of BECO, S.K. Jain. viii) SET - VIII - copy

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

2. This appeal is filed by the Assessee, impugning the order passed in ITA(SS)A No.15/Bang/2012 dated 19.09.2014, relating to the Block Assessment Period from 01.04.1988 to 27.03.1999. 3. The appeal is admitted for consideration of the following substantial questions of law: "i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the dismissal of the first appeal by alleging

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

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

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 a mere wrong mention of the provision in the application would not prohibit a party