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

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

NAVANIDHI VIVIDHODDESHA 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

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

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

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

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

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

CONDONE THE DELAY AND GRANT THE BENEFIT OF THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54EC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

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

deduction u/s 80IA of IT Act in the revised return of income also and therefore, it is debatable. Hence a debatable claim cannot be the matter of condonation petition. 5. The CCIT can condone the 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

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

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

condonation of delay and to refer the matter to the Assessing Authority to consider the revised returns filed seeking for exemption which he had not claimed in the original returns filed.” 3. The respondent-assessee had furnished returns of income for the assessment year 1997-98 on 9.10.1997 declaring the total income of Rs.70,99,279/- after claiming deduction

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)

condonation of delay in filing the revised return was concerned, the letter dated 17.9.2003 was not an order against which a revision could be filed under Section 5 264(1) of the Act and accordingly, had rejected the revision petition by order dated 29.11.2004. Pursuant to such rejection, the petitioner had filed a second revision petition before the Commissioner

ALTIMETRIK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

condoning the delay in view of the retrospective amendment by Finance Act, 2012 about the 5% Standard Deduction earlier allowed

SMT. DR. SUDHA KRISHNASWAMY vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax

condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act before the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax - 3 - – respondent No.1 herein. It was contended that the assessee sold one vacant site at Tumkur on 06.02.2012 for consideration of Rs.52,06,000/- which resulted in a net capital gain of Rs.51,27,500/-. The assessee invested Rs.49

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

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

M/S UNIQUE SHELTERS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

deduction on the premise of the strict application of Section 80-AC. 2. Petitions are opposed by filing separate statement of objections. 3. After having heard the learned counsel for sometime, learned counsel, on instructions, submits that the petitioners would be satisfied with a direction to the Commissioner of Income tax to consider the representation for condoning the delay

M/S. DEEPAK CABLES (INDIA) LTD vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, 2007-08 AND 2008-09 BY EXTENDING EXEMPTION. THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The issue involved in the present writ petition relates to the order passed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.NAVANIDHI VIVIDHODDESHA

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

condonation of delay in filing the returns has to be reconsidered. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned single Judge was not right in exercising discretion in favour of the respondent herein. That for the assessment year 2018-19, there was a delay in filing the returns. Therefore, the respondent could not also claim the deduction