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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

24) ―24. Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than the truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an overemotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused persons arising from the evidence, or from

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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2 years and 3 months and no sufficient reasons with the delay of condonation application were furnished by the Appellants at all except pleading ignorance of law before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, even after discussing the case laws, found that the facts did not deserve any condonation of delay and that exercise of discretion in favour of the Appellants

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

Section 260A of the Act. Therefore, the last date for filing the appeals was 26th October 2007. Keeping that view if the actual dates for filing of the two appeals are taken into consideration then the actual delay works out to far more than what is claimed by the Revenue. As far as ITA No. 453 of 2012 is concerned

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

condoned. There was lack of bona fides in the moving of the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC as there was no explanation Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:10.08.2021 16:30:29 Signature Not Verified RFAs 459/2015 & RFA 283/2020 Page 11 of 20 forthcoming for the delay in filing the said application from the date of the judgment

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

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Nama Nageshwar Rao

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Condonation of Delay) PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel versus SATISH DEV JAIN ..... Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA ITA 23/2021 and connected matters Page 3 of 11 JUDGMENT [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] SANJEEV NARULA, J (ORAL): 1. The present appeals under Section 260A

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-III vs. Sri N.Sai Baba Naidu

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application is disposed of. ITA 319/2012 On 30.08.2012 the following substantial question of law was framed by this Court : “Was the Tribunal correct in holding that the rent received by the appellant was assessable as „income from other sources‟?” ITA 319/2012 Page 2 of 9 2. The assessee is an individual carrying

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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

24 criminal cases, list of which has been made out and filed along with the letters as also he has been served upon 8 show cause notices by the Enforcement Directorate on account of contravention of section 8, 9 & 14 of FERA. 9.3.96: Shri D.C.Agrawal, Addl.DIT (inv.) telephonically contacted at his residence No. and apprised of the contents

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

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

24 criminal cases, list of which has been made out and filed along with the letters as also he has been served upon 8 show cause notices by the Enforcement Directorate on account of contravention of section 8, 9 & 14 of FERA. 9.3.96: Shri D.C.Agrawal, Addl.DIT (inv.) telephonically contacted at his residence No. and apprised of the contents

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

24 criminal cases, list of which has been made out and filed along with the letters as also he has been served upon 8 show cause notices by the Enforcement Directorate on account of contravention of section 8, 9 & 14 of FERA. 9.3.96: Shri D.C.Agrawal, Addl.DIT (inv.) telephonically contacted at his residence No. and apprised of the contents

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

24 criminal cases, list of which has been made out and filed along with the letters as also he has been served upon 8 show cause notices by the Enforcement Directorate on account of contravention of section 8, 9 & 14 of FERA. 9.3.96: Shri D.C.Agrawal, Addl.DIT (inv.) telephonically contacted at his residence No. and apprised of the contents

The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, vs. Prasad Film Laboratories Limited,

24 April 2019. Judgment pronounced on : 2 May 2019. JUDGMENT.  1. First   Appeal   No.275   of   2012   is   filed   by   original  claimant   against   the   judgment   and   award   passed   by   Motor  Accident   Claims   Tribunal   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the  “Tribunal), Jalgaon in Motor Accident Claim Petition (M.A.C.P.)  No.36/2006 and First Appeal No.1037 of 2019 is filed by original                                                         (6)                 First Appeal

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

The appeal stands dismissed on the ground of low tax

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 3Rd February, 2022 Appearance :- Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv.

2 felt that the Department should not go unrepresented, we direct Mr. S.N. Dutta, learned Senior Standing Counsel, assisted by Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, learned Junior Standing Counsel, to appear for the appellant. Let their nomination be regularised by the Ministry of Law. We have heard Mr. Vivek Murarka, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. It is pointed

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-III vs. Smt. Raj Kumari

Accordingly are partly allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

delay. 38. He submits that learned Single Judge although purportedly referred to cases cited above, considered those oblivious of underlying principle. The matters require re-appreciation and reconsideration. 16. He further submits, may be that an objection to maintainability of the appeals is sought to be raised, however, the same having been raised after admission of the appeals, it loses

Commissioner of Income TAx vs. Ongole Milk Line Pvt Ltd

Appeal is disposed of

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2 opposes the prayer. Having regard to the reasons stated in the instant interlocutory application, delay in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. I. A. No. 2832 of 2014 stands allowed. Misc. Appeal No. 189 of 2014 With the consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up to be decided on merit. The present appeal has been filed