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 [Central] vs. Smt P Sujana

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

42,417/- as against Rs.39,12,24,944/-, the loss claimed for the year 2004- 05 of Rs.5,23,18,280/- was not allowable as the return filed for the said year was belated. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant/assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (Appeals) – V, Bangalore, inter alia - 5 - contending that there was a delay

Majeti Madhavi vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax(Central)

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Section 260A(2)(a) of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of days 42

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

42 LPA-22-2008+ to receive proper consideration beyond observations of the authorities and under allusion and passing advertence. 47. The decision in the case of Bhartlal Hemraj (supra) was in Writ petition against refusal by the authorities to condone delay of 20 years while declaration in favour of respondent in that case had been made

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

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

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

42 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 51. However, the proposition that No one can be judge in own cause and justice must not be done but seems to be done comes to serious quandary when applied in the Administrative law for the simple reason that sometimes the statute itself requires a officer to play dual role

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

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

42 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 51. However, the proposition that No one can be judge in own cause and justice must not be done but seems to be done comes to serious quandary when applied in the Administrative law for the simple reason that sometimes the statute itself requires a officer to play dual role

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

42 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 51. However, the proposition that No one can be judge in own cause and justice must not be done but seems to be done comes to serious quandary when applied in the Administrative law for the simple reason that sometimes the statute itself requires a officer to play dual role

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

42 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters 51. However, the proposition that No one can be judge in own cause and justice must not be done but seems to be done comes to serious quandary when applied in the Administrative law for the simple reason that sometimes the statute itself requires a officer to play dual role