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

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. K.V. Srinivasa Rao

Accordingly, the instant appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed

Section 151 CPC for stay of Execution/Revocation Case No.34 of 2017 pending in the court of District Judge-III at Jamshedpur. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted that delay may be condoned and stay of Execution Case may be granted after hearing the parties, be pleased to set aside the award. 9. Heard, learned counsel

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

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

36 Signature Not Verified ITA 1021/2019 & 157/2023 Page 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 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-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 Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt. Raj Kumari

Accordingly are partly allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

36 LPA-22-2008+ deprived of his right of declaration due to oral surrender of tenancy pleaded by appellant without evidence. Possession of land holders is considered not to be referable to section 32(2). The appeal had been allowed, declaring respondent no. 1 to be owner to the extent of 7 Hectare and 77 Are, setting aside additional tahsildar

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

The appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellant to restore the appeal in the

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 20Th February, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Dipendra Nath Chunder, Adv. … For Appellant Mr. Om Narain Rai, Adv. Mr. Anurag Roy, Adv. … For Respondent The Court : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax, 1961 (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31St August, 2010 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) In

section 30 to 36 of the Income Tax Act, and as such the assessee is entitled to get benefit of deduction u/s. 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? ii) Whether the Learned Appellate Tribunal erred in law in not holding that merely on the basis of the return of notices issued u/s. 133(6) of the Act 1961 after

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s.Alloy Nitrides Ltd

Appeals are disposed of

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

36, Ghogumali, Siliguri, Dist- Darjeeling, West Bengal. .... .... Respondents. =========================================================== Appearance : (In MA No.477 of 2011) For the Appellants : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent No.3 : Mr.Alok Kumar @ Alok Kumar Shahi, Advocate. (In MA No.992 of 2011) Patna High Court MA No.477 of 2011 dt.25-09-2018 2/ 8 For the Appellant : Mr.Alok Kumar @ Alok Kumar Shahi, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajesh

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

condoning the delay, noted the question of law mooted in the revision as follows: “We have heard the learned Senior Government Pleader for the Department of Commercial Taxes. It is submitted that the question of law mooted for OT.REV 212/2015 -7- consideration is as to whether the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) has the power to order remand of a case relating

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

36. Proceeding further to explain the circumstances in which a proper officer could initiate a valuation under the 2007 Rules, the Supreme Court in Century Metal Recycling rendered the following pertinent observations: ―17. Proper officer can therefore reject the declared transactional value based on ―certain reasons‖ to doubt the truth or accuracy of the declared value in which event

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s. Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

36. Proceeding further to explain the circumstances in which a proper officer could initiate a valuation under the 2007 Rules, the Supreme Court in Century Metal Recycling rendered the following pertinent observations: ―17. Proper officer can therefore reject the declared transactional value based on ―certain reasons‖ to doubt the truth or accuracy of the declared value in which event

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

36 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters not agile of the matter, but when the communications from higher up were received from Delhi, the AO decided for reassessment. 39. The true test is whether in the given facts and circumstances a person i.e. the AO, who is an employee of the Revenue, too had the capacity to disobey such

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

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

36 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters not agile of the matter, but when the communications from higher up were received from Delhi, the AO decided for reassessment. 39. The true test is whether in the given facts and circumstances a person i.e. the AO, who is an employee of the Revenue, too had the capacity to disobey such

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

36 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters not agile of the matter, but when the communications from higher up were received from Delhi, the AO decided for reassessment. 39. The true test is whether in the given facts and circumstances a person i.e. the AO, who is an employee of the Revenue, too had the capacity to disobey such