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

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

Vidyananda Educational Society vs. The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemptions)II

Bench: The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court Dated : 12.08.2022 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice P.Velmurugan A.S. (Md) No.152 Of 2013 & Cross. Obj(Md)No.23 Of 2022 A.S(Md)No.152 Of 2013 The Special Tahsildar (La) Adi-Dravidar Welfare Periyakulam, Theni District. ... Appellant/Referring Officer Vs. Thiru.Manikandan (Died) 2.Mrs.Sornam 3.Mrs.Kaleeswari 4.Sivakumar 5.M.Kohiladevi ... Respondents/ Claimants Nos.2 To 5 Prayer: Appeal Suit Filed Under Section 54 Of The Land Acquisition Act, To Set Aside The Judgment & Decree, Dated 20.12.2006 Made In L.A.O.P.No. 11 Of 1996, On The File Of The Land Acquisition Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court-Cum-Fast Track No.4, Periyakulam. _________ Page 1 Of 15 Https://Www.Mhc.Tn.Gov.In/Judis

54 of the Land Acquisition Act, to set aside the judgment and decree, dated 20.12.2006 made in L.A.O.P.No. 11 of 1996, on the file of the Land Acquisition Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court-cum-Fast Track No.4, Periyakulam. _________ Page 1 of 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S. (MD) No.152 of 2013 & Cross.Obj(M)DNo.23 of 2022 For Appellant : Mr.T.Vilavankothai For Respondents : Mr.V.Raghavachari

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. M/s.Alloy Nitrides Ltd

Appeals are disposed of

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

delay in preferring the aforesaid appeal is condoned and the said I.A. is allowed. M.A. No.477 of 2011 and M.A. No.992 of 2011 Heard learned counsels for the appellants and the respondents. As the aforesaid two appeals have cropped up from the common judgment and award hence with consent of both the parties, both these appeals are disposed

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, vs. M/s. V.Dhana Reddy AND Co.,

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

54. The learned tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the records passed the impugned judgment and award and allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.9,52,600/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. 14. The application for compensation was filed with the caption 'Claim

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

54 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters Sir, Sub: Forwarding of the assessee's reply in response to notices issued under Income tax & Wealth tax Acts-Reg.- In connection with the telephone talk I had with you yesterday the 9th March, 1996 on the captioned matter and as desired by you I am forwarding the copies of the assessee

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

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

54 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters Sir, Sub: Forwarding of the assessee's reply in response to notices issued under Income tax & Wealth tax Acts-Reg.- In connection with the telephone talk I had with you yesterday the 9th March, 1996 on the captioned matter and as desired by you I am forwarding the copies of the assessee

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

54 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters Sir, Sub: Forwarding of the assessee's reply in response to notices issued under Income tax & Wealth tax Acts-Reg.- In connection with the telephone talk I had with you yesterday the 9th March, 1996 on the captioned matter and as desired by you I am forwarding the copies of the assessee

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

54 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters Sir, Sub: Forwarding of the assessee's reply in response to notices issued under Income tax & Wealth tax Acts-Reg.- In connection with the telephone talk I had with you yesterday the 9th March, 1996 on the captioned matter and as desired by you I am forwarding the copies of the assessee