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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

1) to Rule 3 is not applicable and transaction value is determined in terms of Rules 4 to 9 of the 2007 Rules. 16.6. The proper officer can raise doubts as to the truth or accuracy Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:27.11.2024 18:20:25 Signature Not Verified CUSAA 26/2022 & connected matters Page

The Director of Income Tax, (Exemptions) vs. Royal Education Society

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

43,782/-. (b) additional loss claimed on sale of securities - Rs.8,28,65,052/-. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who by an order dated 31.07.2014 partly allowed the appeal. The assessee thereupon filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short). The tribunal

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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

43 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not established; and the Commissioner of Income-tax used to hear appeals while he was a party to the departmental proceedings also. Till 1960, the Central Board of Revenue too had power to hear appeals in estate duty matters against the order passed by the Controller

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

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

43 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not established; and the Commissioner of Income-tax used to hear appeals while he was a party to the departmental proceedings also. Till 1960, the Central Board of Revenue too had power to hear appeals in estate duty matters against the order passed by the Controller

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

43 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not established; and the Commissioner of Income-tax used to hear appeals while he was a party to the departmental proceedings also. Till 1960, the Central Board of Revenue too had power to hear appeals in estate duty matters against the order passed by the Controller

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

43 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not established; and the Commissioner of Income-tax used to hear appeals while he was a party to the departmental proceedings also. Till 1960, the Central Board of Revenue too had power to hear appeals in estate duty matters against the order passed by the Controller

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

43:36 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

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

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