Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

This assessee’s appeal for the Asst. Year 2014-15 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Hyderabad’s order dt.13.12.2017 passed in the case of Appeal  No.0013/CIT(A)-2/Hyd/2016-17 in the proceedings under Section 143(3) of Income Tax

This appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2009-10 is directed against the CIT(A) - 6, Hyderabad’s order, dated 12/01/2018 involving proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short “the Act”.

These two appeals are filed by the respective assessees arising out of different orders of the respective Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hyderabad for the Assessment Years mentioned herein above respectively.

These two appeals filed by Revenue is arising out of order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Hyderabad both Dt.22.03.2019 for the Assessment Year 2008-09.

This assessee’s appeal for AY.2011-12 arises from the CIT(A)-6, Hyderabad’s order dated 07-06-2019 passed in appeal No.10620/2018-19/A3/CIT(A)-6, in proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’].

Heard Mr.N.V.Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents.

This Writ Petition has been filed for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to refund the tax amount of Rs.1,10,999/- with minimum interest borne by the petitioner under mistake of law. The petitioner was a recipient of service from M/s.IMC Lim

These 16 writ petitions have been filed by Co-operative Societies, being either Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies, Thrift Societies,employees Societies or other categories of Co-operative Societies, and challenge intimations under Se

The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in M/S. Rajkamal Builder Infrastructure Private Limited v. Union of India [R/Special Civil Application No. 21534 of 2019, dated March 23, 2021] quashed and set aside the order issued by the Revenue Department in Form GS

The petitioner�Cochin Port Trust is aggrieved by the refusal of the 1st respondent to encash Bank Guarantee and transfer the same to the petitioner. The petitioner also seeks to declare that invocation of the Bank Guarantee during the claim period is