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

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

delay of 19 years in a pending Writ Petition. Therefore, while we are imposing costs on the Appellants – Petitioners while dismissing the present Letters Patent Appeals, we have left it for State Authorities to file prosecution proceedings against the Appellants - Petitioners. Page 25 of 76 C/LPA/94/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/07/2021 RAVJIBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL SINCE DECD. THR'HEIRS V/s ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR

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.

32 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE ITAT/216/2011 IA NO: GA/2/2021 (Old No.GA/2162/2011) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II, KOLKATA VERSUS NAGREEKA EXPORTS ITAT/216/2011 IA NO: GA/1/2021 (Old No.GA/2161/2011) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA-II, KOLKATA VERSUS NAGREEKA EXPORTS BEFORE : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM And THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY

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-V, vs. Sri. P.Krishna

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 15'1 of C P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo( of the petition, the High Court may be pleased vacate the interim stay order, passed in MACMAMP No.7551/2008,in MACMASR No.30621/2008 dated'14. 1 1.2008. Counsel for the Appellant :SRl. T.RAMULU Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : ANNAPURNA SREERAM Counsel forthe Respondent No.2

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

Commissioner of Income Tax-2, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

delay of 32 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. Main cases This order shall dispose of two income tax appeals i.e. ITA No. 407 of 2011 and ITA No. 33 of 2012 as the issue involved in both the DIVYANSHI 2023.03.03 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/order

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 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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

32 YEARS, PUNNELIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOMBODINJAMAKKAL, THAZHEKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT 4 *ADDL.R4 SRI. MARTIN P.J., S/O. LATE P.T. JOHNSON, AGED 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

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

condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons.” 30. Now, the facts in Ravi’s case show that soon after the accident on 07.10.2001 at 8.00 p.m., the Police had arrived at the Hospital, where the injury report had been drawn up mentioning the fact that

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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

32 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 33. Rule of Law is of the elemental principle of Constitution of India. The Rule of Law requires Rule within the ambit of law and every statutory authority must function themselves as required under the law. The Constitution requires that Rule of Law must be upheld over the rule

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

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

32 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 33. Rule of Law is of the elemental principle of Constitution of India. The Rule of Law requires Rule within the ambit of law and every statutory authority must function themselves as required under the law. The Constitution requires that Rule of Law must be upheld over the rule

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

32 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 33. Rule of Law is of the elemental principle of Constitution of India. The Rule of Law requires Rule within the ambit of law and every statutory authority must function themselves as required under the law. The Constitution requires that Rule of Law must be upheld over the rule

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

32 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 33. Rule of Law is of the elemental principle of Constitution of India. The Rule of Law requires Rule within the ambit of law and every statutory authority must function themselves as required under the law. The Constitution requires that Rule of Law must be upheld over the rule