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

The Commissioner of Income Tax- IV vs. M/s. Prabhat Agri Bio Tech P Ltd.

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 151 CPC for impleadment of Induslnd Bank Ltd. as necessary party) M/S B GHOSE & COMPANY PVT LTD .....Appellant Through: None Versus SATISH MATHUR & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vidur Kamra, Advocate for respondent No.1 + RFA 283/2020, CM APPLs.30147/2020 (by the appellant u/S 151 CPC for stay) & 30149/2020 (by the appellant u/S 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. RASA AGROTECH PRIVATE LTD.

Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

condonation of the delay in filing and re-filing two appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟) challenging the common impugned order dated 5th April 2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal („ITAT‟) in I.T(SS).A.No.352/Del/1997 and I.T(SS).A.No.104/Del/1997 relating to the block period 1st April

M/s. PLL-SUNCON Joint Venture vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed, the delay of one year

section 142(1), the assessee ultimately filed the return of income for all the years, declaring a loss. 3.1 The assessee filed four different appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which came to be dismissed by order dated 23.02.2004. Thereafter, he preferred appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 24.02.2006, which were delayed by 1 year

M/s. PLL-PCL Joint Venture vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed, the delay of one year

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

section 142(1), the assessee ultimately filed the return of income for all the years, declaring a loss. 3.1 The assessee filed four different appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which came to be dismissed by order dated 23.02.2004. Thereafter, he preferred appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 24.02.2006, which were delayed by 1 year

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. M/s.KCIL-MEIL [JV]

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5. On 22.12.2015, this Court while 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

COMMR OF INCOME TAX-II, HYDERABAD vs. M/S TCI HI-WAYS PVT LTD., SECUDERABAD

Bench: Entering Into The Merit Of The Main Petition

Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 266 days in each case in all the aforesaid

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. K.C.P Limited

Bench: Entering Into The Merit Of The Main Petition

Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 266 days in each case in all the aforesaid

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

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

5 of the Limitation Act read with -2- Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay of 96 days. 7. Learned

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Nama Nageshwar Rao

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Condonation of Delay) PCIT (CENTRAL) - 3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Senior Standing Counsel versus SATISH DEV JAIN ..... Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA ITA 23/2021 and connected matters Page 3 of 11 JUDGMENT [VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] SANJEEV NARULA, J (ORAL): 1. The present appeals under Section 260A

SLS Developers vs. The Income Tax Officer

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

condoned the delay. The appellant prays for the same through the instant appeal filed under Section 260-A ol'lncome Tax Act. 5

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

5. According to the learned Attorney-General the assessment proceedings are not of a quasi-judicial nature nor is the Assessing authority a quasi- judicial authority. We are unable to agree. It is apparent from the judgment referred to above and numerous other decisions of this Court delivered in respect of various taxation laws that the Assessing authorities exercise quasi

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

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

5. According to the learned Attorney-General the assessment proceedings are not of a quasi-judicial nature nor is the Assessing authority a quasi- judicial authority. We are unable to agree. It is apparent from the judgment referred to above and numerous other decisions of this Court delivered in respect of various taxation laws that the Assessing authorities exercise quasi

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5. According to the learned Attorney-General the assessment proceedings are not of a quasi-judicial nature nor is the Assessing authority a quasi- judicial authority. We are unable to agree. It is apparent from the judgment referred to above and numerous other decisions of this Court delivered in respect of various taxation laws that the Assessing authorities exercise quasi

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

5. According to the learned Attorney-General the assessment proceedings are not of a quasi-judicial nature nor is the Assessing authority a quasi- judicial authority. We are unable to agree. It is apparent from the judgment referred to above and numerous other decisions of this Court delivered in respect of various taxation laws that the Assessing authorities exercise quasi

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. Best India Tobacco Suppliers Private Limited,

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

condonation of delay. 5. On merits, it has been argued that the learned Single Judge has abdicated in not noticing the report of the Enforcement officer much less the assessment order. In other words, the respondents/petitioners did not place on record the copy of the assessment order which was a clincher to the controversy in dispute. Infact the partners

Commissioner of Income TAx vs. Ongole Milk Line Pvt Ltd

Appeal is disposed of

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 35 days in preferring the present appeal. Learned counsel

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

Section 139(5) of the Act expires, the only remedy which is available to the assessee is to file a return and to seek condonation of delay