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

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, since the revised assessment had been filed within six years from the date of original return and since the assessing authority could exercise rights only within two years. It was further observed that the matter could thereafter be referred to the assessing authority to consider the revised returns filed seeking exemption

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

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

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

R. RAMAKRISHNAN vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

exemption of capital gains in terms of Section 54EC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’ for short]. It transpires that the appellant had sold the property on 03.08.2002 located at No.3304, HAL II Stage, Bengaluru through a registered sale deed. The appellant had invested Rs.25,00,000/- in Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd., [‘REC’ for short] bonds

SARVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ashok B. Hinchigeri

exempted by the proviso to Section 7(3-A) only if the delay is on account of fault of the employee and the employer has obtained the permission in writing from the Controlling Authority for the delayed payments. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of D.PRASADA RAO v. A.P. STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, 47 HYDERABAD reported

M/S. THE KOLAR & CHICKBALLAPUR vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

exemption, deduction, after the expiry of the period prescribed by or under the Act, in any case or class of cases. Accordingly, the CIT (Appeals) rejected the claim of carry forward of the loss, further observing that the assessee had not moved any application to CBDT for condonation of delay

M/S SPPORTHI SADAN CONVENT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Accordingly, the appeal fails and stands dismissed

Bench: The Itat. The Said Appeal Was Presented With The Delay Of 997 Days. The Tribunal On

delay in filing the appeal has recorded a finding which reads follows: “The learned AR though vehemently contended that it was under bonafide impression that Registration u/s 12A was not a condition precedent for the relief by way of exemption u./s 11 of the Act and that it had been advised accordingly, but when questioned could not give

M/S SEVA SADAN CONVENT vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF

Accordingly, the appeal fails and stands dismissed

Bench: The Itat. The Said Appeal Was Presented With The Delay Of 997 Days. The Tribunal On

delay in filing the appeal has recorded a finding which reads follows: “The learned AR though vehemently contended that it was under bonafide impression that Registration u/s 12A was not a condition precedent for the relief by way of exemption u./s 11 of the Act and that it had been advised accordingly, but when questioned could not give

WEIR BDK VALVES vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice B.Manohar W.P. No.72328 & W.P.Nos.72395-397/2012(T-Res) Between: Weir Bdk Valves, A Unit Of Weir India Private Limited., (Formserly B.D.K. Engineering Industries Limited) No.47/48, Gokul Road, Hubli – 580 030, Represented Herein By Its Head – Finance & Accounts, Mr.Lokesh Bhatia. ... Petitioner (By Sri.T.Suryanarayana, Adv. For M/S.King & Partridge, Advs) And: 1. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Audit – 1) , D.C. Compound, Dharwad. 2. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Audit), Kumta.

exemption to the extent of the Forms submitted and pass orders in accordance with law. These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group and having reserved for Judgment on 25-04-2015, this day, the Court pronounced the following: O R D E R Petitioner in these writ petitions has sought for quashing the assessment order dated

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI BELIMATHA MAHA SAMSTHANA SOCIO

Bench: B.MANOHAR,D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE – 17(2) C.R. BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE. … APPELLANTS (BY SRI.K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) AND: SRI. BELIMATHA MAHA SAMSTHANA SOCIO CULTURAL & EDUCATIONAL TRUST, 6162, INDIRANAGAR NELAMANGALA, BANGALORE. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI A. SHANKAR, ADV.) THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 9.11.2006 PASSED IN ITA NO.3676/BANG/2004 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA STATE STUDENTS WELFARE FUND

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

exemption and fulfil other substantive conditions. However, the power of condonation of delay in seeking registration was not available. 8.3 In order

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/s KARNATAKA STATE STUDENTS WELFARE FUND

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

exemption and fulfil other substantive conditions. However, the power of condonation of delay in seeking registration was not available. 8.3 In order

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA STATE STUDENTS WELFARE FUND

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

exemption and fulfil other substantive conditions. However, the power of condonation of delay in seeking registration was not available. 8.3 In order

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA STATE STUDENTS WELFARE FUND

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

exemption and fulfil other substantive conditions. However, the power of condonation of delay in seeking registration was not available. 8.3 In order

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA STATE STUDENTS WELFARE FUND

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

exemption and fulfil other substantive conditions. However, the power of condonation of delay in seeking registration was not available. 8.3 In order

M/S NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

condoned the delay and directed the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore to grant registration under Section 12A w.e.f. 1.4.2003. The Tribunal also taken note of the fact that the assessee was granted exemption