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

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5 of the Limitation Act, along with the appeal, the only plea taken is that the delay was caused on account of the pendency of the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. The bona fides would, Signed By:MANJEET KAUR Signing Date:10.08.2021 16:30:29 Signature Not Verified RFAs 459/2015 & RFA 283/2020 Page 18 of 20 therefore, have

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

condonation of the delay in filing and re-filing two appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) challenging the common impugned order dated 5th April 2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („ITAT‟) in I.T(SS).A.No.352/Del/1997 and I.T(SS).A.No.104/Del/1997 relating to the block period 1st April

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

33 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters officers cannot interfere with the rights of others unless they can point to some specific provision of law, which authorises their acts. 10. It is the settled position of law that the State or its executive officers cannot interfere with the rights of others unless they can point to some specific provision

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

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

33 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters officers cannot interfere with the rights of others unless they can point to some specific provision of law, which authorises their acts. 10. It is the settled position of law that the State or its executive officers cannot interfere with the rights of others unless they can point to some specific provision

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

33 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters officers cannot interfere with the rights of others unless they can point to some specific provision of law, which authorises their acts. 10. It is the settled position of law that the State or its executive officers cannot interfere with the rights of others unless they can point to some specific provision

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

33 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters officers cannot interfere with the rights of others unless they can point to some specific provision of law, which authorises their acts. 10. It is the settled position of law that the State or its executive officers cannot interfere with the rights of others unless they can point to some specific provision

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

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

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 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 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

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

33 Reserved A.F.R. Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 22 of 2001 Appellant :- Navneet Nain Alias Navneet Agarwal Respondent :- New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- R.K. Porwal Counsel for Respondent :- Arvind Kumar Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J. 1. This is a claimant’s appeal, arising out of a judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims