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 condonation of the delay in filing the appeal had also been filed. 16. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 SCC 123; Sankar Dastidar v. Banjula Dastidar, (2006) 13 SCC 470; and, Kamlesh Babu v. Lajpat Rai Sharma, (2008) 12 SCC 577 to submit

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 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

delay in filing of the appeal of 202 days ( t \ \ 6 stand condoned and the appeal would be decided by the Tribunal on its own ments. 9. The ITTA is, accordingly allowed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/- K.SHYLESHI JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION

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 (Central) vs. K.V. Srinivasa Rao

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

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 -2- Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay

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 consideration is to be given with respect to the delay condonation applications. 2. The instant interlocutory applications have been

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 consideration is to be given with respect to the delay condonation applications. 2. The instant interlocutory applications have been

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV, vs. M/s. Prabhat AGri Bio Tech Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

delay of 58 days is condoned. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/02/2026 at 12:29:00 CO.PET. 475/2011 & CRL.O.(CO.) 6/2016 2 of 7 3. Application stands disposed

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. The Sind Coop. Urban Bank Ltd.,

The appeal of the State is allowed and the appeal of the applicants

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

6. The Tribunal raised two issues; whether the scheduled M.F.A.(Forest) Nos. 24 & 69 of 2011 9 . property is an ecologically fragile land and whether the impugned notifications are valid. The Tribunal looked into the definition of 'ecologically fragile lands' to rightly find that, exemption from the definition of forest can be only for lands principally cultivated with crops

Maheswara Educational Society, vs. Director of Income Tax (Exemptions)

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 10(23C) (iii ad) of the Act is concerned. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) as also the ITAT ought to have allowed the appeal and condoned the delay considering the bona fide and reasonable grounds explained by the app,eltant. According to the learned counsel for the appellant

The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. Smt P Sujana

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

condonation of delay in filing the loss return. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed by the assessee before the Tribunal which - 6 - came to be dismissed. Hence, the assessee has preferred this appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee submitted that the denial of set-off of carry forward of loss relying on Section

Commissioner of Income Tax- IT and TP vs. M/s. Louis Berger International Inc

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 21St July, 2022. Appearance :- Mr. Sumit Ghosh, Adv. ….For Appellant. Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. ….For Respondent

condonation of delay is allowed. ITAT/111/2022 : This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’ for brevity) is directed against the 2 order dated 21st February, 2020 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata, “B” Bench, Kolkata in ITA No.2067/Kol/2017 for the assessment years 2007-08. The appellant/assessee has raised

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/s Sri Sri Gruha Nirman India Pvt. Ltd.

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

6 ..... Appellant Through: Mr Ruchir Bhatia, Sr Standing Counsel with Ms Deeksha Gupta, Adv. versus NIRJA PUBLISHERS AND PRINTERS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Ms Sujatha Shirolkar, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] GIRISH KATHPALIA, J.: CM APPL. 12487/2023 in ITA 157/2023 [Condonation of delay

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

delay in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned. I. A. No. 2832 of 2014 stands allowed. Misc. Appeal No. 189 of 2014 With the consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up to be decided on merit. The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. It appears that claimants had filed claim petition being

The Commissioner of Income Tax-V, vs. Sri. P.Krishna

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

6. The claimant has filed cross-objections in the year 2O22 and the lnsurance Company has filed counter stating that as the appeal is of the year 2010, on the ground of delay, the said objections cannot be considered. 7. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that being a beneficial legislation, on the ground of delay, the claimant cannot