The Commissioner of Income Tax IV, vs. M/s. Prabhat AGri Bio Tech Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

delay of 58 days is condoned. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/02/2026 at 12:29:00 CO.PET. 475/2011 & CRL.O.(CO.) 6/2016 2 of 7 3. Application stands disposed

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

40 YEARS,, MANIYACHER BY ADVS.SRI.G.G.MANOJ SRI.P.M.BENZIR P.VISWANATHAN (SR.)(K/000283/1986) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 CISTPDOAM PF VESTED FPRESTS (EFL), FOREST HEAD QUARTERS, VANALAKSHMI, VAZHUTHACAUDU,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS,, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN-695 001. 3 CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS OFFICE OF THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,, KOLLAM-691 001. BY ADV SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt. Raj Kumari

Accordingly are partly allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section 38E for over 40 years. After 40 years, proceedings had been initiated by respondent no. 1 making appellants and the erstwhile tenant of the land, as parties. 43 LPA-22-2008+ The matter with regard to declaration had been sought to be litigated by respondent himself while there had been no declaration and realizing that other persons interest

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

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2, vs. M/s Trinity Advanced Software Labs Private Limited,

In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

section 40(a)(i) of the Act?" 2. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the aforesaid substantial questions of law have already been answered in favour of the assessee by judgment dated 01.12.2020 passed in ITA Nos.214/2014 and 215/2014. It is also urged that the appeal filed by the revenue is barred

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 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-2 vs. Sri Venkatesh Granites Pvt. Ltd.

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : 9Th January, 2023 Appearance : Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. ….For Appellant Mr. Avra Majumder, Adv. Mr. Binayak Gupta, Adv. Mr. Suman Bhowmick, Adv. …For The Respondent The Court : We Have Heard Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Learned Standing Counsel Appearing For The Appellant & Mr. Avra Majumder, Learned Counsel Appearing For The Respondent/Assessee. Though There Is No Satisfactory Explanation For The Inordinate Delay Of 1018 Days In Filing The Appeal, Since We Are Inclined To Take Up The Main Appeal Itself For Consideration & To Ascertain As To Whether Any Substantial Question Of Law Arises For Consideration, We Exercise Discretion & Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal. For Such Reason, The Application Being Ia No.:Ga/1/2022 Is Allowed.

condone the delay in filing the appeal. For such reason, the application being IA No.:GA/1/2022 is allowed. 2 ITAT/241/2022 This appeal filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (the Act, for brevity) is directed against the order dated 6th September, 2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, `C’ Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) in I.T.A

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

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

Vidyananda Educational Society vs. The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemptions)II

Bench: The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Dated : 12.08.2022 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice P.Velmurugan A.S. (Md) No.152 Of 2013 & Cross. Obj(Md)No.23 Of 2022 A.S(Md)No.152 Of 2013 The Special Tahsildar (La) Adi-Dravidar Welfare Periyakulam, Theni District. ... Appellant/Referring Officer Vs. Thiru.Manikandan (Died) 2.Mrs.Sornam 3.Mrs.Kaleeswari 4.Sivakumar 5.M.Kohiladevi ... Respondents/ Claimants Nos.2 To 5 Prayer: Appeal Suit Filed Under Section 54 Of The Land Acquisition Act, To Set Aside The Judgment & Decree, Dated 20.12.2006 Made In L.A.O.P.No. 11 Of 1996, On The File Of The Land Acquisition Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court-Cum-Fast Track No.4, Periyakulam. _________ Page 1 Of 15 Https://Www.Mhc.Tn.Gov.In/Judis

section 4(1), dated 29.09.1994 and based on the permission granted by the Government, dated 20.12.1994, the District Collector has fixed an award at Rs.99,173/- for 3 acre 13 cents. Since the land owner did not agree to the amount determined by the District Collector, Madurai, the Special Tahsildar (LAADW), Periyakulam referred the matter to the land acquisition Tribunal

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

40 years S/o unknown R/o unknown dated 6/7/1994 time 9.15 p.m. B/B HG 3278 Ganesh Prasad of P.S. Cantt. Distt. Kanpur Nagar.” 23. There is then a description of the mark of identification, a medicolegal description of the four injuries sustained, followed by the Doctor's opinion. 24. Nowhere in this report is there a mention of the presence

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sri N.Sai Baba Naidu

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application is disposed of. ITA 319/2012 On 30.08.2012 the following substantial question of law was framed by this Court : “Was the Tribunal correct in holding that the rent received by the appellant was assessable as „income from other sources‟?” ITA 319/2012 Page 2 of 9 2. The assessee is an individual carrying

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

40 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 55. The courts have applied the tests of real likelihood and reasonable suspicion. These doctrines were discussed in S. Parthasarathi v. State of A.P. [(1974) 3 SCC 459 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 580] The Court found that “real likelihood” and “reasonable suspicion” were terms really inconsistent with each other and the court

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

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

40 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 55. The courts have applied the tests of real likelihood and reasonable suspicion. These doctrines were discussed in S. Parthasarathi v. State of A.P. [(1974) 3 SCC 459 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 580] The Court found that “real likelihood” and “reasonable suspicion” were terms really inconsistent with each other and the court

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

40 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 55. The courts have applied the tests of real likelihood and reasonable suspicion. These doctrines were discussed in S. Parthasarathi v. State of A.P. [(1974) 3 SCC 459 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 580] The Court found that “real likelihood” and “reasonable suspicion” were terms really inconsistent with each other and the court

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

40 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 55. The courts have applied the tests of real likelihood and reasonable suspicion. These doctrines were discussed in S. Parthasarathi v. State of A.P. [(1974) 3 SCC 459 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 580] The Court found that “real likelihood” and “reasonable suspicion” were terms really inconsistent with each other and the court

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