SHREE GURU NITHYANANDA SOUHARDA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice P.B. Bajanthri

condonation of delay WP No.28871/19 Balkuru Halu Utpadakara Sahakara Sangha Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 134 days

NAVANIDHI VIVIDHODDESHA vs. PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice P.B. Bajanthri

condonation of delay WP No.28871/19 Balkuru Halu Utpadakara Sahakara Sangha Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 134 days

KERADI MILK PRODUCERS WOMEN S vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice P.B. Bajanthri

condonation of delay WP No.28871/19 Balkuru Halu Utpadakara Sahakara Sangha Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 134 days

PADUMUNDU MILK PRODUCERS WOMEN vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice P.B. Bajanthri

condonation of delay WP No.28871/19 Balkuru Halu Utpadakara Sahakara Sangha Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 134 days

SASTHAVU HALU UTHPADAKARA MAHILA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice P.B. Bajanthri

condonation of delay WP No.28871/19 Balkuru Halu Utpadakara Sahakara Sangha Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 134 days

BALKURU HALU UTHPADAKARA vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice P.B. Bajanthri

condonation of delay WP No.28871/19 Balkuru Halu Utpadakara Sahakara Sangha Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 134 days

DR(SMT) SUJATHA RAMESH vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

condonation of delay does not stand to benefit by lodging its claim late. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious

M/S N.M.D.C vs. THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING

Bench: R-1.

condone the delay beyond 30 days. Therefore, this Court also does not find reason to condone the delay keeping in view

M/S M.B. PATIL CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. vs. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND ANR

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice S.Vishwajith Shetty W.P.No.223253/2020 (Gm-Res) C/W W.P.No.223254/2020 (Gm-Res), W.P.No.223255/2020 (Gm-Res), W.P.No.223256/2020 (Gm-Res) Between: M/S. M.B.Patil Constructions Ltd., Having Corporate Office At 2Nd Floor, Commercial Building No.1, Opp. Income Tax Building, Shankarsheth Road, Swaragate, Pune - 411 042, Maharashtra State. Rep. By Sri M.S.Mallikarjuna By His Gpa Holder, Sri Dhanaji Venkatrao Patil, Aged About 43 Years, Occ: Business, R/O Plot No.10, Konark Aditya Block, Golibar Maidan Chowk, Camp Pune - 411 001. …Petitioner

condone a maximum of 30 days delay thereafter, and if the delay is more than that, the same cannot be condoned

ERAPPA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice M.G.S. Kamal Writ Petition No. 9257 Of 2014 (Sc/St) Between:

condonation of delay. The consideration for condonation of delay would not depend on the status of the party namely the Government

KAMALSAB S/O. DAWOODSAB SAVANUR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar Writ Petition No. 79811 Of 2013(Lr) Between Sri. Kamalsab S/O. Dawoodsab Savanur Age: 51 Years, Occ: Agriculture R/O. Kotigeri Oni, Hangal, Dist:Haveri. ... Petitioner (By Sri. D L Ladkhan, Advocate) & 1. The State Of Karnataka R/By Secretary Department Of Revenue M.S. Building, Bengaluru 2. The Land Tribunal, Hangal R/By Its Secretary Tq:Hangal, Dist: Haveri 3. Sri. Ramachandra Hemajippa Sugandhi Since Deceased By His Lrs 3A. Smt. Sunanda W/O. Krishna Sugandhi Age: Major, Occ: Household Work R/O. Bazar Galli, Near Chavadi Hangal, Dist: Haveri

condonation of delay or refusal to condone the delay. Merely because, no third party rights have been created is hardly

M/S SHARAVATHY CONDUCTORS vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari W.P.No.28376/2017 (T-It) Between

condone the delay as per the above prescribed monetary limits, including the Board. A condonation application should be disposed of within

M/S ASCENDAS SERVICE (INDIA) PVT LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

condonation of delay application and condoned the delay in preferring the appeal. It is well settled that though there is delay

ARECANUT PROCESSING AND SALE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, these petitions are allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

CONDONE THE DELAY AND TO THE 2 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD II SHIMOGA TO PROCESS THE RETURN FILED BY THE PETITIONER

SRI NARAYANAN KOLLAKKIL KUTTY vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

condoning the delay. On the other hand, the said Circular infact permits the respondents to condone the delay as sought

VASUDEV ADIGAS FAST FOODS PVT. LTD. vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

In the result, the petition is allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe

condonation of delay in filing the return of income for the assessment year 2014-15. 4. Facts giving rise to the filing

MRS. PREMALATHA PAGARIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, order dated 23

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

condonation of delay. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by order dated 3.09.2015 rejected the application for condoning the delay