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

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

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

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

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

delay may be condoned and stay of Execution Case may be granted after hearing the parties, be pleased to set aside the award. 9. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award. It appears that husband of the claimant- Gopal Prasad died in a motorcycle accident, which caused on 24.06.2009 at about 09:30 A.M. near Share

THE COMMIR.OF INCOME-TAX A.P.-II.HYD. vs. MOHD.SIDDIQ PROP.M/S.HUMA ATCHANDRADIO.

In the result, Question No

condonation of such delay. In the above set of facts and circumstances, the assessee has sought the above referred questions of law for opinion of this Court. The learned counsel for the assessee contends that the reasoning recorded by the Tribunal for reversing the order of the first appellate authority and coming to a different conclusion is erroneous and unsustainable

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

Accordingly are partly allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

loss of possession. The transfer by subsequent purchaser who himself purchased it in 1966 can not confer upon petitioner any such cause of action. ” 14. He also purports to invite attention to paragraph no. 15 of Radhu Gokul Gawali and others V/s. Mohan Kishan Gawali and others 19 LPA-22-2008+ reported in 2007 (6) Mh.L.J. 117 cited by learned

THE COMMISSIONER OF I.T.-I, HYDERABAD. vs. M/S. AKASH CABLE TV NETWORK PVT.LTD., HYDERABAD.

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

delay in refilling is condoned. ITA 252/2012 ITA 253/2012 ITA 258/2012 We have heard Mr. Santhanam in these appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („Act‟, for short) impugning the common order dated 26.8.2011. The appeals relate to assessment years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05. In the years in question, the appellant, a private limited

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Chirla Rama Reddy

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN ITA No.767/BANG/2001 DATED 25.11.2005 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/s.Voith Turbo Pvt Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN I.T.A. No.3808/BANG/2004 DATED 30.08.2005 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-12(2), BANGALORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, S. SUJATHA

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, vs. M/s. V.Dhana Reddy AND Co.,

Bench: C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

set-aside. 4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company opposing the appeal of the claimant for enhancement of compensation submits that the appeal has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds. The doctor was not produced to prove the future loss on account of the disability suffered in the accident and no proof of any income from 3 the sport

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

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ANIS,SANJAY KUMAR

SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS TO THE EXTENT AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'C' BENCH, BENGALURU IN ITA NO.1372/BANG/2014 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 29.02.2016. THIS I.T.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 260A of the Income

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

M/S MAQSOD AND CO HYDERABAD vs. THE COMMNER OF INCOME TAX HYD

loss to him and caused deprivation of his earnings as a contractor in their entirety. 5. Nain, therefore, claimed damages in the total sum of Rs.27,89,100/- setting forth in the claim petition damages, separately under the principal heads of pecuniary and general damages. 4 6. At the time of institution of the claim petition, Nain was residing

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

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

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

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

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