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-3 vs. M/s. Rockwell Collins (India) Enterprises PVt. Ltd.,

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

condoned the delay and directed CIT(A) to re-hear the matter on merits. The CIT(A)-II under order dated 27.02.2009 rejected the appeal for non-payment of admitted tax as required under Section 249(4) of the Act. The Assessee thereafter preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, while rejecting the contention of the Assessee as regards

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

Accordingly are partly allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

condone delay of 20 years and same had been dismissed. Alongside making some observations in the given facts and circumstances of that matter, would hardly be able to hold the facts and circumstances of the present case. 48. Hasan Bin Salam V. Madhavrao (supra) was a case wherein the respondent had been declared as owner under section 38E and that

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

M/s Nuland Infrastructure(P) Ltd vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax - 4

Appeal stands dismissed as

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

section 5 of Limitation Act praying that in.the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the High Court may.lce pi.rilO to condone the delay of i378-days in filing the above lTTA in,lTA nrrnu., 23tHydl2O22, dated 04108t2022 on the file of lncome Tax Appellant Tribunal, Hyderabad A Bench, Hyderabad

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

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

45 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters i) The Statutory authority cannot permit its decision to be influenced by the dictation of others as this would amount to abdication and surrender of its discretion which is impermissible in law. ii) General power of superintendence must be distinguished from the interference in the adjudication process. The authority in which

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

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

45 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters i) The Statutory authority cannot permit its decision to be influenced by the dictation of others as this would amount to abdication and surrender of its discretion which is impermissible in law. ii) General power of superintendence must be distinguished from the interference in the adjudication process. The authority in which

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

45 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters i) The Statutory authority cannot permit its decision to be influenced by the dictation of others as this would amount to abdication and surrender of its discretion which is impermissible in law. ii) General power of superintendence must be distinguished from the interference in the adjudication process. The authority in which

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

45 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters i) The Statutory authority cannot permit its decision to be influenced by the dictation of others as this would amount to abdication and surrender of its discretion which is impermissible in law. ii) General power of superintendence must be distinguished from the interference in the adjudication process. The authority in which