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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

1) to Rule 3 is not applicable and transaction value is determined in terms of Rules 4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. 16.6. The proper officer can raise doubts as to the truth or accuracy Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

1) to Rule 3 is not applicable and transaction value is determined in terms of Rules 4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. 16.6. The proper officer can raise doubts as to the truth or accuracy Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page

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

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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

delay in filing the said application from the date of the judgment. The plea that the A.R. had left the job, was found to be no ground at all. 19. Reliance has been placed on Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar, (2005) 1 SCC 787 to contend that both the remedies, i.e., the filing of the appeal under Section

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

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

Section 249(4)(a) of the Act. We find no reason to take a different view, nor has any demonstrable ground been shown for interference. 18. In view of the foregoing, the appeal is liable to be dismissed, and the substantial questions of law are answered against the appellant-Assessee

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

23 (2012) 4 SCC 653 40 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 55. The courts have applied the tests of real likelihood and reasonable suspicion. These doctrines were discussed in S. Parthasarathi v. State of A.P. [(1974) 3 SCC 459 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 580] The Court found that “real likelihood” and “reasonable suspicion” were terms really inconsistent with

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

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

23 (2012) 4 SCC 653 40 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 55. The courts have applied the tests of real likelihood and reasonable suspicion. These doctrines were discussed in S. Parthasarathi v. State of A.P. [(1974) 3 SCC 459 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 580] The Court found that “real likelihood” and “reasonable suspicion” were terms really inconsistent with

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

23 (2012) 4 SCC 653 40 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 55. The courts have applied the tests of real likelihood and reasonable suspicion. These doctrines were discussed in S. Parthasarathi v. State of A.P. [(1974) 3 SCC 459 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 580] The Court found that “real likelihood” and “reasonable suspicion” were terms really inconsistent with

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

23 (2012) 4 SCC 653 40 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 55. The courts have applied the tests of real likelihood and reasonable suspicion. These doctrines were discussed in S. Parthasarathi v. State of A.P. [(1974) 3 SCC 459 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 580] The Court found that “real likelihood” and “reasonable suspicion” were terms really inconsistent 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

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

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

1 SCC 117, has held that the application for filing of an application for 11 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

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

Sri Natakari Gopal vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and 2 Others

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 3Rd January, 2023. Appearance : Mr. Tilak Mita, Adv. ..For Appellant Mr. Pranit Bag , Adv. Mr. A. K. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Debdatta Saha, Adv. …For Respondent Re: Ga/1/2022 The Court:- Heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, Learned Advocate For The Appellant & Mr. Pranit Bag, Learned Advocate For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 1126 Days In Filing The Appeal. Though The Reasons Given In The Affidavit Are Not Convincing The Issues Involved In The Appeal Had Been Decided By This Court In Earlier Matters, This Court Exercises Discretion & Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Application Is Allowed.

condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the application is allowed. ITAT/148/2022 This appeal filed by the revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] is directed against the order dated 15.2.2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “A[SMC]” Bench in ITA No.1018/Kol/2018 for the assessment year 2015-16 the revenue has raised

THE COMMISSIONER OF I.T.-I, HYDERABAD. vs. M/S. AKASH CABLE TV NETWORK PVT.LTD., HYDERABAD.

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

1 of 8 $~ 35 to 37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 24th April, 2012. + ITA 252/2012 + ITA 253/2012 + ITA 258/2012 AZEEM INVESTMENT PVT LTD ..... Appellant Through Mr. R. Santhanam and Mr. A P Sinha, Advs. versus CIT ..... Respondent Through Mr. Deepak Chopra, sr. standing counsel with Mr. Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Adv. CORAM

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

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