The Commissioner of Income TAx-IV, vs. M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises (India) Limited

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

condonation of delay and that exercise of discretion in favour of the Appellants is untenable. The Tribunal also discussed merits of the case and dismissed the appeal on merits following Full Bench decision of Gujarat High Court. 24. The observations made by the learned Single Judge in the said judgement (Coram: A.P. Ravani, J.) about Section 10(3) declaration vesting

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

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

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

Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay of 96 days. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that

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

Accordingly are partly allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

7) (a)(b) and provisos to section 38E which do not appear to have not been taken into account. There is no reference to the same. None of the authorities has dealt with the relevant aspects elaborately and their implications. 40. It is not disputed that respondent no. 1 at any point of time since 1952, had ever asserted

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 vs. Smt.Y.Uma Rani

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date : February 3, 2022. [Via Video Conference] Appearance : Mr. Asok Bhowmik, Adv. … For The Appellant Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Soumya Kejriwal, Adv. Mr. Anand Agarwal, Adv. ..For The Respondent The Court : We Have Heard Mr. Asok Bhowmik, Learned Standing Counsel Appearing For The Appellant/Revenue & Mr. J.P. Khaitan, Learned Senior Counsel Duly Assisted By Mr. Soumya Kejriwal & Mr. Anand Agarwal, Learned Counsel For The Respondent/Assessee.

7 & 8 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE IA NO.GA/2/2018 (Old No. GA/2110/2018) In ITAT/237/2018 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 2, KOLKATA VS. M/S. LONG VIEW TEA CO. LTD. IA NO.GA/1/2018 (Old No. GA/2109/2018) In ITAT/237/2018 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 2, KOLKATA VS. M/S. LONG VIEW TEA CO. LTD. BEFORE

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 OFFICER 1. The lncome

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. 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 IV, vs. M/s. Prabhat AGri Bio Tech Limited

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956. 2. For reasons stated in the application, same is allowed, and the 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

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

7. The Tribunal rightly found exclusion from the definition of 'forest' and that, exclusion of vesting under the EFL Act is possible only if there is principle cultivation of long duration crops or existence of buildings, with requirement of beneficial use of appurtenant lands. The burden to prove the existence of such requirement of exclusion also squarely falls

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

condone the delay in filinq the cross-objections on condition that the claimant is entitled for rnlerest on the enhanced compensation from the date of filing of the cross-objecttons. 13. ln the light of the above discussion, the cross-objecto/claimant is entitled for compensation under the following heads; 1. Loss of dependency 2. Consortium 3. Funeral expenses

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

delay in re- filing the appeal is condoned. ITA 1021/2019 & ITA 157/2023 1. These two appeals between same parties are based on similar factual and legal matrix, so taken up together for disposal. The appeal bearing ITA No. 1021/2019 pertains to the Assessment Year 2011-12 while the other appeal bearing ITA No. 157/2023 pertains to the Assessment Year

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

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. It is also submitted that proceeding under Section 148 can be initiated only in respect of such income which escapes assessment

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

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

delay of one day in filing the return ought to have been condoned and no powers under Section 154 of the Act would have been invoked. Referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, - 7