The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. Smt P Sujana

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

14. However, we reserve liberty to the assessee to file an application under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act before the competent authority seeking for condonation of delay

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

delay condonation which was not found to be cogent reasons by the Tribunal and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 25.11.1985 not only as barred by limitation but following the Full Bench judgement of Gujarat High Court in the case of Shah Jitendra Nanalal vs. Patel Lallubhai Ishverbhai Patel [1984 (2) GLR 1001] also dismissed the appeal on merits

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 delay in filing ITA NO. 453/2012 (CIT v. Arvinder Singh) it was claimed that there was only 22 days' delay in filing the appeal. It was stated in the said application that initially no appeal was preferred against the impugned order dated 5th April 2007 of the ITAT as at that stage “it was considered more appropriate

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2) CPC were not mutually exclusive and nor were they to be taken necessarily simultaneously, as a consecutive recourse was permissible. However, the time taken in pursuing the remedy under Order IX Rule 13 CPC may form “sufficient cause” for condoning the delay in filing the appeal against the judgment and decree, but that would depend on the bona fides

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 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 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

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

Vidyananda Educational Society vs. The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemptions)II

Bench: The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Dated : 12.08.2022 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice P.Velmurugan A.S. (Md) No.152 Of 2013 & Cross. Obj(Md)No.23 Of 2022 A.S(Md)No.152 Of 2013 The Special Tahsildar (La) Adi-Dravidar Welfare Periyakulam, Theni District. ... Appellant/Referring Officer Vs. Thiru.Manikandan (Died) 2.Mrs.Sornam 3.Mrs.Kaleeswari 4.Sivakumar 5.M.Kohiladevi ... Respondents/ Claimants Nos.2 To 5 Prayer: Appeal Suit Filed Under Section 54 Of The Land Acquisition Act, To Set Aside The Judgment & Decree, Dated 20.12.2006 Made In L.A.O.P.No. 11 Of 1996, On The File Of The Land Acquisition Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court-Cum-Fast Track No.4, Periyakulam. _________ Page 1 Of 15 Https://Www.Mhc.Tn.Gov.In/Judis

condone the delay of 3095 days, this Court, on 02.08.2022 has _________ Page 8 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S. (MD) No.152 of 2013 & Cross.Obj(M)DNo.23 of 2022 passed the following conditional order:- “Though the appeal in A.S(MD) No.152 of 2013 was filed by the Government in the year 2013, the petitioners have filed this cross-objection with

Commissioner of Income Tax-I, vs. Agriculturl Market Committee

The appeal stands dismissed on the ground of low tax effect

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 11Th May, 2022. Appearance : Ms. Smita Das De, Adv. ….For Appellant Ms. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Adv. …For Respondent The Court : We Have Heard Ms. Smita Das Dey, Learned Standing Counsel Appearing For The Appellant/Revenue & Ms. Nilanjana Banerjee Pal, Learned Advocate Appearing For The Respondent/Assessee. There Is A Delay In Filing The Appeal & This Application Being Ga/1/2011 (Old No. Ga/1658/2011) Has Been Filed For Condonation Of Delay. There Was A Condition Imposed By The Division Bench Of This Court On 17Th August, 2011 That The Appellant Shall Pay A Cost Of Rs.10,000/- To The Counsel For The Respondent. This Condition Has Not Been Complied With.

2 Furthermore, the order is a self-speaking order. In any event, we have found the tax effect in the appeal is below the threshold limit fixed by the CBDT and therefore, we exercise discretion and condone the delay in filing the appeal. The petition for condonation of delay stands allowed. ITAT/154/2011 This appeal by the revenue filed under Section

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

Accordingly are partly allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

14. He also purports to invite attention to paragraph no. 15 of Radhu Gokul Gawali and others V/s. Mohan Kishan Gawali and others 19 LPA-22-2008+ reported in 2007 (6) Mh.L.J. 117 cited by learned counsel for respondent (for other purpose i.e. regarding extent of protected tenancy) to submit that application under section 98 of the HTAL

Maheswara Educational Society, vs. Director of Income Tax (Exemptions)

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

14 years period, but definitely could had granted registration w.e.f. 01.04.2003 i.e. the previous financial year during which the gross income of the appellant for the First time crossed the limit of Rs.1 crore so far as exemption that could be avai ed under Section 10(23C) (iii ad) of the Act is concerned. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant

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 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