Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Nama Nageshwar Rao

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

2 of 11 Counsel versus SAJAN KUMAR JAIN ..... Respondent Through: None + ITA 29/2021 & CM APPL. 5525/2021(Condonation of Delay) PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel versus ANAND KUMAR JAIN ..... Respondent Through: None + ITA 30/2021 & CM APPL. 5526/2021(Condonation of Delay) PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 ..... Appellant Through: versus ANAND KUMAR JAIN ..... Respondent Through: None + ITA 31/2021

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/s Sri Sri Gruha Nirman India Pvt. Ltd.

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

2 of 9 pages condonation of delay of 245 days in re-filing the appeal No. ITA 157/2023 after curing the defects raised by the Registry of this court. The delay is explained largely on account of collation of relevant records. There being no serious objection, the application is allowed and accordingly the delay in re- filing the appeal

The Director of Income Tax, (Exemptions) vs. Royal Education Society

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) has been preferred by the assessee. The subject matter of the appeal pertains to the Assessment year 2007-08. The appeal was admitted by a bench of this Court on the following substantial questions of law: "(1) Whether the Tribunal is right in applying

The Commissioner of Income Tax - II, vs. Sri Shikari Vishwanatam

260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arising out of order dated 14.08.2008 passed in ITA No.1207/Bang/2007 praying to : (i) formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein, (ii) Allow the appeal and set-aside the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in I.T.A. No.1207/Bang/2007 dated 14.08.2008 and confirm the order passed by the Appellate Commissioner confirming

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 vs. Smt.Y.Uma Rani

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : February 3, 2022. [Via Video Conference] Appearance : Mr. Asok Bhowmik, Adv. … For The Appellant Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Soumya Kejriwal, Adv. Mr. Anand Agarwal, Adv. ..For The Respondent The Court : We Have Heard Mr. Asok Bhowmik, Learned Standing Counsel Appearing For The Appellant/Revenue & Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Counsel Duly Assisted By Mr. Soumya Kejriwal & Mr. Anand Agarwal, Learned Counsel For The Respondent/Assessee.

2 There is a delay of 269 days in filing the appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons given in the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned The petition for condonation of delay is allowed. ITAT No. 237 of 2018 This appeal filed by the revenue under Section

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

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 260A(2)(a) of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay

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

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

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee

Accordingly, the appeal (ITAT/11/2011) stands dismissed

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ for brevity) is directed against the order dated 18th December, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.1193/Kol/2009 for the assessment year 2001-02. The revenue has raised for the following substantial question of law for consideration: 2 i) Whether on the facts

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

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 against the Order dated 31-10-2007 passed in ITA No.270iHydl2005 for the Assessment Year 2004-2OO5 on the file of the lnmme Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench 'A', Hyderabad. Between: Maheswara Educational Warangal District. Society,, Maheswaram, Narasampet Mandal, ...Appellant AND Director of Income Tax (Exemptions), Basheerbagh, Hyderabad -500 029. ...Respondent Counsel

Prl Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Konaseema Power Corporation Limited

The appeal stands dismissed on the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S.Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Dated : November 18, 2021. [Via Video Conference] Appearance : Mr. Arunava Ganguly, Advocate …For Appellant Mr. Siddharth Das, Advocate Mr. G.S. Gupta, Advocate ..For Respondent The Court :- Heard Mr. Ganguly, Learned Counsel Appearing For The Appellant & Mr. Das, Learned Counsel Appearing For The Respondent/Assessee.

2 We are satisfied with the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the petition and, therefore, we are exercising discretion to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. The application is allowed. This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A

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/238/2022 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 “B” Bench, Kolkata [Tribunal] in ITA No.2467/Kol/2017 for the assessment year 2014-15 the revenue

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 Prl. Commissioner of Income vs. The Tarun Kumar Goyal

The appeal is dismissed

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 Ms. Swapna Das, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Das, Adv. …For Respondent Re: Re: Ga/1/2022 The Court:- Heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, Learned Advocate For The Appellant & Ms. Swapna Das, Learned Advocate For The Respondent. There Is A Delay Of 370 Days In Filing The Appeal. We Have Perused The Affidavit Filed In Support Of The Condone Delay Petition & We Find Sufficient Cause Has Been Shown For Not Preferring The Appeal Within The Period Of Limitation. Hence, The Application Is Allowed & The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Condoned.

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. ITAT/243/2022 This appeal filed by the revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] is directed against the order dated 15.3.2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata [Tribunal] in ITA No.686/Kol/2019 for the assessment year 2015-16. The revenue has raised the following substantial question

PRL COMMR OF INCOME TAX-2, HYDERABAD vs. M/S IJM [INDIA] INFRASTRUCTURE LTD., HYDERABAD

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

2 make submission on the merits of the matter. To this suggestion, the learned counsel readily agreed to make submission on the merits of the matter. For such reason, we exercise discretion and condone the delay in filing this appeal. The application, IA NO.GA/1/2017 [OLD No:GA/1771/2017] stands disposed of accordingly. RE: ITAT/201/2017 This appeal by the revenue filed

The Pr. Commissioner of income Tax-4 vs. M/s. Pavani Structurals Pvt. Ltd.

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: :

2 justified in view of the fact that the said company was in the list of entities involved in doing suspicious transaction in penny stocks and that the assessee, who was specialized in dealing in shares, would have no justifiable reason to deal in such scrips ? b) Whether the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law, by failing

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

260A, 268A – Instruction No.3 of 2011, dated 9-2-2011. The view adopted by the Delhi High Court making the circular applicable to pending matters came up before a three- Judges Bench of this Court in SLP (C) No.CC 13694 of 2011 titled CIT v. Surya Herbal Ltd. when the following order was passed on August 29, 2011: “Delay condoned