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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 18 and explained its significance in the following words: ―22. The significance of Section 18 of the Act can be understood in the light of the above provisions. Section 18 provides for provisional assessment of duty in cases specified in sub-section (1) of the section. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) deals with cases where the importer

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

E] would show that the petitioner's prayer for grant of No Objection Certificate in relation to the scheme was not granted. Once such prayer was rejected, then, it would simply mean that the prayer made in the application was rejected.” 3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition with a cost of Rs.10,000/-, with following reasons

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

E N T [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] ASHA MENON, J. 1. Since both the appeals have been filed against the same judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court dated 23rd February, 2015 passed in a suit filed by the respondent No.1/Satish Mathur against the two appellants, namely, M/s.Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Ashok Leyland

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

Accordingly are partly allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

E) Dadarao S/o Bhanudas Ingale, Age : 40 years, Occu : Agri., R/o Shelka Dhanora, Tq. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad 6 LPA-22-2008+ 2. The Tahsildar, Kallam, Tq. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad 3. The Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Osmanabad, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad 4. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1565 OF 2008 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Best India Tobacco Suppliers Private Limited,

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

E N T Amit Rawal, J. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in this intra court appeal is against the order of Single bench whereby the order of assessment of the Tribunal has been set aside. 2. Enforcement Officer of the appellate Provident Fund Commissioner conducted inspection of the premises of both two units, that is, Maruti Engineers and M/s.Computer Auto Scan

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

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

22 of Civil Procedure Code, to reverse and set aside the judgment and decree in Cross Appeal against A.S.No.152 of 2013, on the file of this Court in reversing the well considered judgment and decree in L.A.O.P.No.11 of 1996, on the file of the Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.4, Periyakulam, dated 20.12.2006 and allow

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

E) Learned counsel would submit that during the period from 6-6-1995 to December, 1995 the Investigation Department, Delhi, continued to illegally exercise jurisdiction over the entire assessment proceedings to complete exclusion of the AO. He would submit that during the period as has been reflected in the order of the ITAT, the AO was not even involved

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

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

E) Learned counsel would submit that during the period from 6-6-1995 to December, 1995 the Investigation Department, Delhi, continued to illegally exercise jurisdiction over the entire assessment proceedings to complete exclusion of the AO. He would submit that during the period as has been reflected in the order of the ITAT, the AO was not even involved

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

E) Learned counsel would submit that during the period from 6-6-1995 to December, 1995 the Investigation Department, Delhi, continued to illegally exercise jurisdiction over the entire assessment proceedings to complete exclusion of the AO. He would submit that during the period as has been reflected in the order of the ITAT, the AO was not even involved

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

E) Learned counsel would submit that during the period from 6-6-1995 to December, 1995 the Investigation Department, Delhi, continued to illegally exercise jurisdiction over the entire assessment proceedings to complete exclusion of the AO. He would submit that during the period as has been reflected in the order of the ITAT, the AO was not even involved

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Voith Turbo Pvt Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

E R Mr. K.V.Aravind, Adv. for Appellants- Revenue Mr. A.Shankar, Adv. for Respondent - Assessee This Income Tax Appeal filed by the Appellant- Revenue earlier came to be disposed of by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 02.11.2011, on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect involved being less than the prescribed monetary

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Chirla Rama Reddy

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

E R Mr. M.Thirumalesh, Adv. for Appellants- Revenue Mr. S.Parthasarathi & Mrs. Soumya K., Advs. for Respondent - Assessee This Income Tax Appeal filed by the Appellant- Revenue earlier came to be disposed of by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 15.02.2012, on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable due to the tax effect involved being less than

Commissioner of Income Tax-2, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

delay of 32 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. Main cases This order shall dispose of two income tax appeals i.e. ITA No. 407 of 2011 and ITA No. 33 of 2012 as the issue involved in both the DIVYANSHI 2023.03.03 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/order