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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

condonation of delay and that exercise of discretion in favour of the Appellants is untenable. The Tribunal also discussed merits of the case and dismissed the appeal on merits following Full Bench decision of Gujarat High Court. 24. The observations made by the learned Single Judge in the said judgement (Coram: A.P. Ravani, J.) about Section 10(3) declaration vesting

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

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

delay in re- filing the appeal is condoned. ITA 1021/2019 & ITA 157/2023 1. These two appeals between same parties are based on similar factual and legal matrix, so taken up together for disposal. The appeal bearing ITA No. 1021/2019 pertains to the Assessment Year 2011-12 while the other appeal bearing ITA No. 157/2023 pertains to the Assessment Year

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 [Central] vs. Smt P Sujana

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

28,42,417/- as against Rs.39,12,24,944/-, the loss claimed for the year 2004- 05 of Rs.5,23,18,280/- was not allowable as the return filed for the said year was belated. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (Appeals) – V, Bangalore, inter alia - 5 - contending that there

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

28,65,052/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 31.07.2014 partly allowed the appeal. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). The tribunal by an order dated 29.02.2016 inter alia allowed the claim

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-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- 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

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

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

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

28-06- 2O22 preferred against the Order of the Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals)-1 '1, Hyderabad, ITA No.0148 to 01SO/DCIT CC 1(3), Hyd/ClT(A)-1 1113-14 dated:10-08- 2016, prefened against the Order of the Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax Central Circle-6, Hyderabad, PAN/G I R No.ACEPM0659D, dated 27 -O3-2O1 3. Between: Majeti Madhavi

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

M/s. Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: SUJOY PAUL,NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

condonation of delay of 8 days in filing and 2 days in re-filing are allowed as the counsel for the respondent, who appears on advance notice, does not oppose the prayers. FAO(OS) (COMM) 279/2018 & CM APPL. 49432/2018 This intra-court appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('A&C Act', for short) read with

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. M/s.KCIL-MEIL [JV]

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

28 YEARS, OT.REV 212/2015 -2- PUNNELIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOMBODINJAMAKKAL, THAZHEKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT *ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS R2 TO R4 AS PER VIDE ORDER DTD. 29/10/18 IN IA NO. 3/18 BY ADVS. SRI.P.R.AJITHKUMAR SRI.K.MANOJ CHANDRAN SRI.K.SRIKUMAR SR. OTHER PRESENT: SPL. G.P TAXES MOHAMMED RAFIQ FOR THE PETITIONER THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.11.2021, THE COURT

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

28. The fact that PW-2 disclosed his name to the patient and slipped a chit of paper in the victim's pocket carrying the details of his identity, which lasted with the victim long enough to 15 mention this witness a month and a three-quarters later when the FIR was lodged, also makes the story absolutely incredible

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

28 99 DLR (3d) 561 (Onterio Curt of Appeal) 58 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters thereafter is at the dictation of higher authorities then the order itself would be outcome of bias and authority having original jurisdiction would not be able to come to save them under the shell. The entirety of facts cannot be fragmented in peace

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

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

28 99 DLR (3d) 561 (Onterio Curt of Appeal) 58 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters thereafter is at the dictation of higher authorities then the order itself would be outcome of bias and authority having original jurisdiction would not be able to come to save them under the shell. The entirety of facts cannot be fragmented in peace