The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Smt. Raj Kumari

Accordingly are partly allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

65 (as amended by Bihar Scheduled Areas Regulation, 1969, Regn. 4 and Sch.) ” and submits, lapse of 40 years is not a reasonable period for exercise of powers under the statute. He submits that in said case while the unduly long delay had operated against the claimants negating their demands, by analogy, rationale in the same would apply and ought

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

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

12 which sets out some of the conditions when the ―reason to doubt‖ exists. The instances mentioned in sub-clauses (a) to (f) are not exhaustive but are inclusive for there could be other instances when the proper officer could reasonably doubt the accuracy or truth of the value declared. 18. The choice of words deployed in Rule 12

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s. Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

12 which sets out some of the conditions when the ―reason to doubt‖ exists. The instances mentioned in sub-clauses (a) to (f) are not exhaustive but are inclusive for there could be other instances when the proper officer could reasonably doubt the accuracy or truth of the value declared. 18. The choice of words deployed in Rule 12

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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

12 noon. He desired to have a set of the contents of the envelope to be sent by FAX which has been so transmitted to him. 1.3.96: Tried to contact Shri D.C.Agrawal n his telephone No.7527513 but there was no response. This was just done to have the confirmation of having received the sealed envelope as above. At about

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

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

12 noon. He desired to have a set of the contents of the envelope to be sent by FAX which has been so transmitted to him. 1.3.96: Tried to contact Shri D.C.Agrawal n his telephone No.7527513 but there was no response. This was just done to have the confirmation of having received the sealed envelope as above. At about

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

12 noon. He desired to have a set of the contents of the envelope to be sent by FAX which has been so transmitted to him. 1.3.96: Tried to contact Shri D.C.Agrawal n his telephone No.7527513 but there was no response. This was just done to have the confirmation of having received the sealed envelope as above. At about

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

12 noon. He desired to have a set of the contents of the envelope to be sent by FAX which has been so transmitted to him. 1.3.96: Tried to contact Shri D.C.Agrawal n his telephone No.7527513 but there was no response. This was just done to have the confirmation of having received the sealed envelope as above. At about