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

Bench: R-1.

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, BANGALORE 2021 –VIL-15-KAR. 6. HIND WIRE INDUSTRIES LTD., V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGAL-V, AIR 1995 SC 1133 7. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. TONY ELECTRONICS LIMITED. MANU/DE/2869/2009 8. TUKARAM KANA JOSHI AND ORS. THR. POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER V. M.I.D.C. AND ORS., AIR 2013 SC 565 9. JUMANA MATIWALA

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

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 (COMMON) (By Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Sr. Counsel for Sri Ganesh S.Kalburgi

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

Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 and 2. Question of issuing notice to other respondents does not arise since writ petition is being rejected/dismissed on the ground of delay and laches for the reasons indicated herein below. 2. Petitioner is seeking for quashing of the order passed by Land Tribunal dated 28.04.1988 Annexure-B whereunder the Tribunal after considering

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 filed by the petitioner and admitted the appeal on payment of costs of Rs.50,000/- which was paid by the petitioner on 19.01.2021, pursuant to which, the appeal was numbered by CESTAT as ST/20055/2021. Immediately thereafter, petitioner submitted a letter to the respondents seeking refund of the aforesaid sum debited from its account and also submitted

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

income for the said assessment year along with Audit Report u/s 44AB of the Act (Annexure-D); c. Issue a writ of mandamus or a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus to direct 1st respondent to give instructions to the 2nd respondent to rectify the defective return once the delay is condoned and to refund the amount

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AXA BUSINESS

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

income, an assessee can make additional claim for deduction by filing revised computation. In view of the question raised by the revenue, learned counsel for the respondents-assessee submitted that the respondents would be satisfied if they are allowed to file revised return seeking set-off of loss of 3 U.K.Branch with an application for condonation of delay

SRI. DEVENDRA PAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav Writ Petition No. 52305/2018 (T-It) Between: Sri. Devendra Pai S/O. Late Narasimha Pai No. 1012, "Udaya", 2Nd Cross, Vivekananda Circle, Mysore - 23. … Petitioner (By Sri. S. Shankar, Senior Advocate As Amicus Curiae Sri. S. Parthasarathi, Advocate) And: 1. The Assistant Commissioner Of

condone the delay in filing the 2 same before him and grant exemption under Section 10(10C) of the Act as prayed for by petitioner vide Annexure-F. This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B' group this day, the Court, made the following: ORDER At the hearing of the petition, the Court felt that the equity

M/S ING VYSYA BANK LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result appeal fails and it is hereby

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,AJIT J GUNJAL

additional amount of income-tax payable on the income disclosed in the application exceeds ten lakh rupees, and such tax and the interest hereon, which would have been paid under the provisions of this Act had the income disclosed in the application been declared in the return of income before the Assessing Officer on the date of application, has been

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY vs. M/S. SOUMYA POLYMERS

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Income tax on 18.04.2013 and thereafter to the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, and subsequently to the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. On 24.05.2013, the Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes sent the file to the Commissioner for Commercial Taxes. On 08.06.2013, the Commissioner for Commercial Taxes sent the file back to the Additional Commissioner (Legal Affairs) to prepare the draft

SMT. P.UMA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad Writ Petition No.7294/2020 (Lr) Between : Smt. P.Uma W/O Siddappa Aged About 58 Years, Working As Tailor No.938, 7Th Cross J T Road, Raghavendra Blcok Srinagar, Bengaluru - 560 050. ... Petitioner (By Sri. M. Keshavareddhy., Advocate) & : 1. The Assistant Commissioner Ramanagara Sub Division Ramangara District - 562 159. 2. The Tahashildar Ramangara Tq Ramanagara District - 562 159. 3. R. Ronald Sebastian S/O Y K Rajanna Aged About 55 Years, R/O No.D-10 Ground Floor

condonation of delay when substantive rights are involved, and the Tribunal has erred in concluding, without considering material circumstances, that the petitioner is not diligent in filing the appeal. The learned counsel, relying upon the RTC for the land in survey No. 211 of Ittamadu village, 9 Ramanagar Taluk and District and the income tax returns filed by the petitioner

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SHRI RAMESH RAMACHANDRA RAO,

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

condonation of a delay of 574 days in preferring the appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on delay and merits. 3. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 153C of the IT Act, by order dated 27.03.2015. The assessment was based on the seized material found during the course of search conducted in the case

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S GOLF VIEW HOMES LTD

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

additional aspect is that in the above observation of the Tribunal, there is also reference to similar finding recorded by CIT (Appeals) on Pages 32 and 33. As the said finding is not reproduced by the Tribunal in its order, we find it appropriate to reproduce the same. 8. When CIT (Appeals) was considering the applicability of the decision

JINESH (HUF) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,R. NATARAJ

condoning the delay of 145 days in filing the appeal on the facts and circumstances of the case? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2005-06 declaring taxable 4 income of Rs.75,350/- earned by way of liaison commission on sale of agricultural

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S GOLF VIEW HOMES LTD.,

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

additional aspect is that in the above observation of the Tribunal, there is also reference to similar finding recorded by CIT (Appeals) on Pages 32 and 33. As the said finding is not reproduced by the Tribunal in its order, we find it appropriate to reproduce the same. 8. When CIT (Appeals) was considering the applicability of the decision

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S GOLF VIEW HOMES LTD

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

additional aspect is that in the above observation of the Tribunal, there is also reference to similar finding recorded by CIT (Appeals) on Pages 32 and 33. As the said finding is not reproduced by the Tribunal in its order, we find it appropriate to reproduce the same. 13 8. When CIT (Appeals) was considering the applicability of the decision

M/S ASHOK KUMAR BACHAWAR (HUF) vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.S.Dinesh Kumar Writ Petition No. 106714/2016 (T-Tar) & Writ Petition No.106796/2016 Between : M/S. Ashok Kumar Bachawat (Huf) Plot No.4, Adarsha Colony, Radio Park, Bellary-583101, Karnataka (Represented By Mr.Ashok Kumar Bachawat S/O Shir. Bhikarechand Bachawat Karta Of Huf Aged About 58 Years). ... Petitioner (By Sri B. G. Chidananda Urs, Advocate) & : 1. Union Of India Ministry Of Finance Represented By Its Secretary, North Block, New Delhi-110001 2. The Commissioner Of Central Excise No.71, Club Road, Belgaum-590001 3. The Joint Commissioner Of Service Tax Office Of The Commissioner Of Central Excise No.71, Club Road, Belgaum-590001. ... Respondents These Writ Petitions Are Filed Under Articles 226 & 227 Of The Constitution Of India, Praying To Quash The Impugned Order Dated 29.02.2016/04.03.2016 Is Enclosed As Annexure-D, Passed By Respondent No.3.

addition, he confirmed the demand of interest under Section 75 of the Act and imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Section 77(2) of the Act r/w. Rule 7C of Service Tax Rules, 1994 and imposed a further penalty of Rs.35,43,585/- under Section 78 of the : 4 : Act. It was made clear that the penalty, under Section

SRI. M SEETHAPATHY RAO vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, COMMISSIONERATE I, TTMC, BMTC BUILDING, DOMLUR, BENGALURU - 560 071. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K. V. ARAVIND, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL) **** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 13.10.2017 IN ORDER NO.329/2017 IN GST APPEAL NO.717/2017 [ANNEXURE

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SYNDICATE BANK

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

delay of 334 days in filing the above appeal is condoned. 4. The appeal raises the following substantial questions of law for consideration by this Court: "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal's order is perverse in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mangalore relating