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

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

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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

3 SCC 76 57 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters the proceedings before the Deputy Superintendent or the Assistant Collector were vitiated. This position obtains in all the appeals although the type and quality of paper are different. The Central Government merely affirmed the order made by the Collector in each case and did not give any independent reasons

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

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

3 SCC 76 57 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters the proceedings before the Deputy Superintendent or the Assistant Collector were vitiated. This position obtains in all the appeals although the type and quality of paper are different. The Central Government merely affirmed the order made by the Collector in each case and did not give any independent reasons

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

3 SCC 76 57 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters the proceedings before the Deputy Superintendent or the Assistant Collector were vitiated. This position obtains in all the appeals although the type and quality of paper are different. The Central Government merely affirmed the order made by the Collector in each case and did not give any independent reasons

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

3 SCC 76 57 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters the proceedings before the Deputy Superintendent or the Assistant Collector were vitiated. This position obtains in all the appeals although the type and quality of paper are different. The Central Government merely affirmed the order made by the Collector in each case and did not give any independent reasons

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

3) read with Section 147 of the Act determined the income of the assessee at Rs.51,71,70,670/- and made following additions: (a) disallowance of contributions made to funds -Rs.10,86,43,782/-. (b) additional loss claimed on sale of securities - Rs.8,28,65,052/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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 S.3(3

M/s. PLL-SUNCON Joint Venture vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed, the delay of one year

1 - 2. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA Date : 16/08/2012 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA) TAXAPJ/3722/0114 2/8 ORDER All the three captioned appeals arise out of a common order dated 12.01.2007 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench ‘B’ in ITA Nos.476 of 2006 to 479 of 2006 corresponding

M/s. PLL-PCL Joint Venture vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed, the delay of one year

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

1 - 2. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA Date : 16/08/2012 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V. ANJARIA) TAXAPJ/3722/0114 2/8 ORDER All the three captioned appeals arise out of a common order dated 12.01.2007 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench ‘B’ in ITA Nos.476 of 2006 to 479 of 2006 corresponding

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 151 CPC for impleadment of Induslnd Bank Ltd. as necessary party) M/S B GHOSE & COMPANY PVT LTD .....Appellant Through: None Versus SATISH MATHUR & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vidur Kamra, Advocate for respondent No.1 + RFA 283/2020, CM APPLs.30147/2020 (by the appellant u/S 151 CPC for stay) & 30149/2020 (by the appellant u/S 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay

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

3) of the Act on 26.03.2001, determining the taxable income. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [for short, 'CIT(A)']. 4.1 The CIT(A)-IV rejected the appeal on the ground of delay and latches. The Tribunal, at the instance of the assessee, condoned the delay and directed CIT(A) to re-hear

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- 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

SLS Developers vs. The Income Tax Officer

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

delay in filing of the appeal of 202 days ( t \ \ 6 stand condoned and the appeal would be decided by the Tribunal on its own ments. 9. The ITTA is, accordingly allowed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/- K.SHYLESHI JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. The lncome

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