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

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. 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

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, vs. M/s. Best India Tobacco Suppliers Private Limited,

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

condonation of delay. 5. On merits, it has been argued that the learned Single Judge has abdicated in not noticing the report of the Enforcement officer much less the assessment order. In other words, the respondents/petitioners did not place on record the copy of the assessment order which was a clincher to the controversy in dispute. Infact the partners

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

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 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

22 LPA-22-2008+ through LRs. and others” wherein the court in paragraph no. 10 observed thus, “ 10. The aforesaid circumstances show that before the learned Single Judge of this Court the decision of M.R.T. was challenged and the decision was given within the scope of provision of section 91 of Hyderabad Tenancy Act. There was no jurisdictional error

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Chirla Rama Reddy

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Delay condoned. Date of order: 30-7-2018 I.T.A. No.798/2006 The Commissioner of Income-Tax & Anr. vs. Sri K.Gopal 5/22 Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated February 9, 2011 should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases under the Income

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Delay condoned. Date of order: 30-7-2018 I.T.A. No.168/2006 The Commissioner of Income-Tax & Anr. vs. Sri Anil Kabra 5/22 Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated February 9, 2011 should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases under

M/s Nuland Infrastructure(P) Ltd vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax - 4

Appeal stands dismissed as

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

section 5 of Limitation Act praying that in.the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the High Court may.lce pi.rilO to condone the delay of i378-days in filing the above lTTA in,lTA nrrnu., 23tHydl2O22, dated 04108t2022 on the file of lncome Tax Appellant Tribunal, Hyderabad A Bench, Hyderabad

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

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 assailing the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad, Bench-A, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal') in I.T.A.No.l49OlHydl 20 IB, dated 28.06.2022. 3. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal rejected the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the salrle was barred by limitation with

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

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

22. Amount of compensation claimed. 23. Any other information that may be necessary or helpful in the disposal of the claim. I ..................................solemnly declare that the particulars given above are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature or thumb-impression of the applicant ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FORM SR-49 [See Rule 204(1)] Application for compensation under Section

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

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

22. More than that, the earliest record in the hospital is the one from K.P.M. Hospital dated 06.07.1994, bearing Paper No.13-Ga/4. It is signed by the Medical Officer, K.P.M. Hospital, Birhana Road, Kanpur. It mentions the description of the injured in the following words: “Examined an unknown male person aged about 40 years S/o unknown R/o unknown dated 6/7/1994 time

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

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