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 8

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 8

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S. RASA AGROTECH PRIVATE LTD.

Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

condonation of delay in filing ITA NO. 453/2012 (CIT v. Arvinder Singh) it was claimed that there was only 22 days' delay in filing the appeal. It was stated in the said application that initially no appeal was preferred against the impugned order dated 5th April 2007 of the ITAT as at that stage “it was considered more appropriate

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

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

Bench: C.V. BHASKAR REDDY,UJJAL BHUYAN

8, 9 & 14 of FERA. 9.3.96: Shri D.C.Agrawal, Addl.DIT (inv.) telephonically contacted at his residence No. and apprised of the contents of the letters filed by the assessee on 8.3.96. He comminuted that the copies of these letters be forwarded to him by FAX. 11.3.96: As desired, the copies of assessee's reply have been transmitted through

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

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

8, 9 & 14 of FERA. 9.3.96: Shri D.C.Agrawal, Addl.DIT (inv.) telephonically contacted at his residence No. and apprised of the contents of the letters filed by the assessee on 8.3.96. He comminuted that the copies of these letters be forwarded to him by FAX. 11.3.96: As desired, the copies of assessee's reply have been transmitted through

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

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

8, 9 & 14 of FERA. 9.3.96: Shri D.C.Agrawal, Addl.DIT (inv.) telephonically contacted at his residence No. and apprised of the contents of the letters filed by the assessee on 8.3.96. He comminuted that the copies of these letters be forwarded to him by FAX. 11.3.96: As desired, the copies of assessee's reply have been transmitted through

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

8, 9 & 14 of FERA. 9.3.96: Shri D.C.Agrawal, Addl.DIT (inv.) telephonically contacted at his residence No. and apprised of the contents of the letters filed by the assessee on 8.3.96. He comminuted that the copies of these letters be forwarded to him by FAX. 11.3.96: As desired, the copies of assessee's reply have been transmitted through

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. M/s.KCIL-MEIL [JV]

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

condoning the delay, noted the question of law mooted in the revision as follows: “We have heard the learned Senior Government Pleader for the Department of Commercial Taxes. It is submitted that the question of law mooted for OT.REV 212/2015 -7- consideration is as to whether the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) has the power to order remand of a case relating

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.

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

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

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

condonation of delay of 96 days. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that I.A. No.5708 of 2020 has been filed under Order-XLI, Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC for stay of Execution/Revocation Case No.34 of 2017 pending in the court of District Judge-III at Jamshedpur. 8

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

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: CHALLA KODANDA RAM,G.CHANDRAIAH

8. Section 80 of the Act reads thus: “80. Submission of return for losses.—Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, no loss which has not been determined in pursuance of a return filed [in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 139, shall be carried - 9 - forward and set off under sub-section (1) of section

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

Accordingly are partly allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

delay. 38. He submits that learned Single Judge although purportedly referred to cases cited above, considered those oblivious of underlying principle. The matters require re-appreciation and reconsideration. 16. He further submits, may be that an objection to maintainability of the appeals is sought to be raised, however, the same having been raised after admission of the appeals, it loses

SLS Developers vs. The Income Tax Officer

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Section 260-A ol'lncome Tax Act. 5. Learned senior standing counsel for the Income Tax Department on the other hand submits that perusal of the grounds of condonation of delay submitted before the 1earned ITAT itself would go to show that the grounds are nothing but lame excuses and it wers not the case where the appellant

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

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