Judgements and Orders, Supreme Court and High courts of India

This appeal filed by the assessee is arising out of order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Visakhapatnam Dt.27.01.2016 for the Assessment Year 2008-09.

This assessee’s appeal for AY.2012-13 arises from the CIT(A)-7, Hyderabad’s order dated 06-06-2017 passed in appeal No.483/CIT(A)-7/2016-17, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’].

This assessee’s appeal for AY.2014-15 arises from the CIT(A)-6, Hyderabad’s order dated 31-01-2018 passed in case No.0285/2016-17/A3/CIT(A)-6, in proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’]. Heard both the parties. Case f

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