PADUMUNDU MILK PRODUCERS WOMEN vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

condonation of delay application. Delay is 143 days in filing Return. No knowledge that if the return is not filed within date not eligible for deduction. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners – assesees had commenced their respective businesses during the financial year 2017-18 (A.Y. 2018-19) and in the first year of filing their respective income

SASTHAVU HALU UTHPADAKARA MAHILA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

condonation of delay application. Delay is 143 days in filing Return. No knowledge that if the return is not filed within date not eligible for deduction. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners – assesees had commenced their respective businesses during the financial year 2017-18 (A.Y. 2018-19) and in the first year of filing their respective income

SHREE GURU NITHYANANDA SOUHARDA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

condonation of delay application. Delay is 143 days in filing Return. No knowledge that if the return is not filed within date not eligible for deduction. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners – assesees had commenced their respective businesses during the financial year 2017-18 (A.Y. 2018-19) and in the first year of filing their respective income

THOMBATHU MILK PRODUCERS vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

condonation of delay application. Delay is 143 days in filing Return. No knowledge that if the return is not filed within date not eligible for deduction. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners – assesees had commenced their respective businesses during the financial year 2017-18 (A.Y. 2018-19) and in the first year of filing their respective income

BIDKALKATTE MILK PRODUCERS ' vs. PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

condonation of delay application. Delay is 143 days in filing Return. No knowledge that if the return is not filed within date not eligible for deduction. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners – assesees had commenced their respective businesses during the financial year 2017-18 (A.Y. 2018-19) and in the first year of filing their respective income

BALKURU HALU UTHPADAKARA vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

condonation of delay application. Delay is 143 days in filing Return. No knowledge that if the return is not filed within date not eligible for deduction. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners – assesees had commenced their respective businesses during the financial year 2017-18 (A.Y. 2018-19) and in the first year of filing their respective income

K M CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI LTD vs. PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

condonation of delay application. Delay is 143 days in filing Return. No knowledge that if the return is not filed within date not eligible for deduction. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners – assesees had commenced their respective businesses during the financial year 2017-18 (A.Y. 2018-19) and in the first year of filing their respective income

M/S HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as

Bench: JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA,S.SUJATHA

income from profits and gains of business’? iv) Whether the order of the Tribunal is good in law in as much as the Tribunal has not considered the ratio of the judgment of the Apex Court in CIT Vs. M/s. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. (2016) 383 ITR 217 (SC)? 3. The following substantial questions of law are raised in ITA No.100028/2017

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

income tax and the refunds of tax deducted at source by the customers who purchased the agricultural produce of farmer members. Regard being had to the nature of business of the petitioner and the persons managing the Co-operative Institution, the explanation offered cannot, but be said 9 to constitute sufficient cause to condone the delay

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

Bench: R-1.

business entity, i.e., the Petitioner.’’ 2.4 Being aggrieved by the order of the AAR, the petitioner company filed an application under section 102 of the CGST Act, 2017 i.e, for rectification of the advanced ruling and on 23.01.2020 the AAR has passed an order holding that they have already passed an order on merits and there is no error/ apparent

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

BUSINESS R/O. KOTIGERIONI, HANGAL. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVI V HOSAMANI, AGA FOR R1 & R2) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, DATED:28/04/1988 AT ANNEXURE-B AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

BUSINESS SERVICES PVT LTD NO.16/2, RESIDENCY ROAD BANGALORE-560 025 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI S PARTHASARATHI & SRI MALHARA RAO, ADVS.,) THIS ITA FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 09/11/2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.72/BANG/2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008, & PRAYS THIS HON'BLE COURT TO: I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED 2 THEREIN

M/S SHARAVATHY CONDUCTORS (P) LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Honourable Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy Writ Petition No.32772 Of 2009 (T-Tar) Between: M/S. Sharavathy Conductors (Private) Limited, Represented By Its Managing Director Sri. Kaardam Patel, Son Of Late Sri. S.D.Patel, Aged About 39 Years, No.23, Bci Estate, 6Th Main, Old Madras Road, Bangalore 560 016. …Petitioner (By Shri A. Shankar, Advocate)

business of manufacture and sale of Aluminium Conductors Steel Reinforced. The petitioner in the financial year ending 31.3.1997 has supplied the products produced by the company 3 to a world bank aided project, for which the petitioner received proceeds in convertible foreign exchange. The petitioner is said to have filed its original return of income for the assessment year

M/S NAGESH ENTERPRISES vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPELAS

The appeal is dismissed without condoning

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Panaji Bench In 152/Pnj/2008 For The Assessment Year 2005-2006. In The Said Appeal The Appellant Herein Had Filed Cross Objection In M.A. No.10/Pnj/2011. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Revenue & The Cross Objection Of The Assessee By Its Order Dated 08.04.2011. The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Rejection Of The Cross Objection By The Tribunal. 2. In The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Notice Was Served Upon The Assessee On 26.11.2008. The Cross

business, R/o Patil Galli, Belgaum. - Appellant (by Sri Sangram S. Kulkarni, Advocate) and 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, 3rd Floor, Feroz Khimjibhai Complex, Opp. Civil Hospital, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Belgaum. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Belgaum, 3rd Floor, Feroz Khimjibhai Complex, Opp. Civil Hospital, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Belgaum. - Respondents : 2 : This appeal is filed

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

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Income Tax Act, since it is for the business activity. 12. The aforesaid fact is coupled with the aspect that in the very observation of the Tribunal, it has been recorded as under:- “Before us, the department has not disputed the above finding of fact recorded by CIT (Appeals).” Meaning thereby, the aforesaid finding was not even disputed

SRI MUNINAGA REDDY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice B. Veerappa Writ Petition No.25553/2018 (T-It) Between:

business though a part of it was declared as income from other source, thereby the income was assessed at a higher rate. On 28.4.2009, the petitioner was served demand - 3 - notice under a printed form I.T.N.S.29 indicating the issue of notice under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Act and also issued intimation of penalty proceedings under

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

Income Tax Circle 11(1), Rashtrothana Bhavan Nrupathunga Road Bangalore Petitioners (By Sri Jeevan J Neeralgi, Adv.) And M/s Axa Business Services Pvt Ltd # 16/2, Residency Road Bangalore Respondent (By Sri S Parthasarathy, Adv.) Review Petition is filed under O 47 R 1 & 2 r/w S.151, CPC for review of judgment dated 9.10.2013 in ITA 139/2013. 2 Review Petition coming