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

56,61,835/-. In the return of income, the 5 assessee made an additional claim on account of loss on sale of securities to the extent of Rs.8,28,65,052/-. 3. The Assessing Officer by an order dated 30.03.2013 passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act determined the income of the assessee at Rs.51

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

56 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters jurisdiction but it is difficult to conceive that even the merit of the decision shall be discussed and the same shall be rendered at the instance of the higher authority who, as noticed hereinbefore, is a supervisory authority. It is one thing to say that while making the orders of assessment

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

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

56 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters jurisdiction but it is difficult to conceive that even the merit of the decision shall be discussed and the same shall be rendered at the instance of the higher authority who, as noticed hereinbefore, is a supervisory authority. It is one thing to say that while making the orders of assessment

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

56 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters jurisdiction but it is difficult to conceive that even the merit of the decision shall be discussed and the same shall be rendered at the instance of the higher authority who, as noticed hereinbefore, is a supervisory authority. It is one thing to say that while making the orders of assessment

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

56 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters jurisdiction but it is difficult to conceive that even the merit of the decision shall be discussed and the same shall be rendered at the instance of the higher authority who, as noticed hereinbefore, is a supervisory authority. It is one thing to say that while making the orders of assessment

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sri N.Sai Baba Naidu

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO,ALOK ARADHE

delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Application is disposed of. ITA 319/2012 On 30.08.2012 the following substantial question of law was framed by this Court : “Was the Tribunal correct in holding that the rent received by the appellant was assessable as „income from other sources‟?” ITA 319/2012 Page 2 of 9 2. The assessee is an individual carrying

Commissioner of Income Tax-2, vs. Agricultural Market Committee,

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

delay of 32 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. Main cases This order shall dispose of two income tax appeals i.e. ITA No. 407 of 2011 and ITA No. 33 of 2012 as the issue involved in both the DIVYANSHI 2023.03.03 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/order

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