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 [Central] vs. Smt P Sujana

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

5 - contending that there was a delay of one day in filing the return for the assessment year 2004-05, as the due date for filing of the return which happened to be a Sunday and the next day being Kannada Rajyosthsava Day, the assessee was under bonafide belief that it was a Government Holiday. CIT (Appeals) called for report

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

5. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 2 6. Whether the suit has not been filed by a competent person, if so, effect of the same? OPD 2 7. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties? OPD2 8. Whether there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2? OPD 2

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

5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= MUKESH JESANGBHAI PATEL - Appellant(s) Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD III & 1 - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR DIPAK R DAVE for Appellant(s) : 1,MR MANISH J SHAH for Appellant(s) : 1, MR SUDHIR M MEHTA for Opponent(s) : 1 - 2. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE

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

5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= MUKESH JESANGBHAI PATEL - Appellant(s) Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD III & 1 - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR DIPAK R DAVE for Appellant(s) : 1,MR MANISH J SHAH for Appellant(s) : 1, MR SUDHIR M MEHTA for Opponent(s) : 1 - 2. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE

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 Civil Miscellaneous Petitions, therefore, this Court is of the view that before entering into the merit of the main petition, 2

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 Civil Miscellaneous Petitions, therefore, this Court is of the view that before entering into the merit of the main petition, 2

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

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

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

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

2) JLJR 433. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the impugned award is bad in law, as such, the instant appeal may be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that I.A. No.7561 of 2017 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

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 in filing the return under Section 119 of the Act. It is further submitted that Section 148 of the Act provides a remedy to the revenue and is not a remedy to the assessee

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

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

5 OF 2026 lncome Tax Tribunal Appeal Under Section 260,4 of the lncome Tax Act,1961 against the Order dated 20.08.2025 passed in lTA.No.895lHydl2O25 for the Assessment Year 2018-2019 on the file of the lncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench'A, Hyderabad. Between: SLS Developers, 20-1371211, RB Nagar, Shamsha.bad, Ranga Reddy, Telangana