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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

72 the appellant applied to All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) seeking permission for starting an engineering college which was accorded and established in the name of Balaji Institute of Technology and Science with effect from the academic year 2001- 02. After having successfully established two educational institutions, the appellant society further thought of starting a B.Ed college

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-III vs. Smt. Raj Kumari

Accordingly are partly allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

72) and appellants claim that respondent no. 1 had around 1952 orally surrendered his 8 LPA-22-2008+ tenancy of land survey no. 34. After respondent no. 1, one Shivram Sakharam Sawase had been tenant. 4. Aforesaid Shivram Sawase had not asserted his claim over aforesaid land and the appellants had been owners of the aforesaid land. A civil suit

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

72. Now, next comes the question whether the Tribunal having upheld the initiation of reassessment proceedings, was legally justified in not remanding the case back to the asessing officer for fresh asessment. Since the order of initiation is declared void therefore the question does not arise for consideration. 73. Even otherwise the court cannot condone the delay of the proceedings

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

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

72. Now, next comes the question whether the Tribunal having upheld the initiation of reassessment proceedings, was legally justified in not remanding the case back to the asessing officer for fresh asessment. Since the order of initiation is declared void therefore the question does not arise for consideration. 73. Even otherwise the court cannot condone the delay of the proceedings

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

72. Now, next comes the question whether the Tribunal having upheld the initiation of reassessment proceedings, was legally justified in not remanding the case back to the asessing officer for fresh asessment. Since the order of initiation is declared void therefore the question does not arise for consideration. 73. Even otherwise the court cannot condone the delay of the proceedings

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

72. Now, next comes the question whether the Tribunal having upheld the initiation of reassessment proceedings, was legally justified in not remanding the case back to the asessing officer for fresh asessment. Since the order of initiation is declared void therefore the question does not arise for consideration. 73. Even otherwise the court cannot condone the delay of the proceedings