PADUMUNDU MILK PRODUCERS WOMEN vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION No.28871/2019 (T-IT) C/W WRIT PETITION Nos.28872/2019, 29109/2019, 29110/2019, 28873/2019, 29580/2019, 29583/2019, 29582/2019, 29584/2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.28871/2019 BETWEEN: Balkuru Halu Uthpadakara Sahakari Sangha Ltd., Balkuru Village, Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District – 576 211. Represented by its C.E.O., Mr.Yogesh. …Petitioner (By Sri. Mahesh R Uppin, Advocate) AND: 1. Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan

THOMBATHU MILK PRODUCERS vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION No.28871/2019 (T-IT) C/W WRIT PETITION Nos.28872/2019, 29109/2019, 29110/2019, 28873/2019, 29580/2019, 29583/2019, 29582/2019, 29584/2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.28871/2019 BETWEEN: Balkuru Halu Uthpadakara Sahakari Sangha Ltd., Balkuru Village, Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District – 576 211. Represented by its C.E.O., Mr.Yogesh. …Petitioner (By Sri. Mahesh R Uppin, Advocate) AND: 1. Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan

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

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

JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION No.28871/2019 (T-IT) C/W WRIT PETITION Nos.28872/2019, 29109/2019, 29110/2019, 28873/2019, 29580/2019, 29583/2019, 29582/2019, 29584/2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.28871/2019 BETWEEN: Balkuru Halu Uthpadakara Sahakari Sangha Ltd., Balkuru Village, Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District – 576 211. Represented by its C.E.O., Mr.Yogesh. …Petitioner (By Sri. Mahesh R Uppin, Advocate) AND: 1. Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan

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

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

JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION No.28871/2019 (T-IT) C/W WRIT PETITION Nos.28872/2019, 29109/2019, 29110/2019, 28873/2019, 29580/2019, 29583/2019, 29582/2019, 29584/2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.28871/2019 BETWEEN: Balkuru Halu Uthpadakara Sahakari Sangha Ltd., Balkuru Village, Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District – 576 211. Represented by its C.E.O., Mr.Yogesh. …Petitioner (By Sri. Mahesh R Uppin, Advocate) AND: 1. Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan

SHREE GURU NITHYANANDA SOUHARDA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION No.28871/2019 (T-IT) C/W WRIT PETITION Nos.28872/2019, 29109/2019, 29110/2019, 28873/2019, 29580/2019, 29583/2019, 29582/2019, 29584/2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.28871/2019 BETWEEN: Balkuru Halu Uthpadakara Sahakari Sangha Ltd., Balkuru Village, Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District – 576 211. Represented by its C.E.O., Mr.Yogesh. …Petitioner (By Sri. Mahesh R Uppin, Advocate) AND: 1. Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan

NAVANIDHI VIVIDHODDESHA vs. PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION No.28871/2019 (T-IT) C/W WRIT PETITION Nos.28872/2019, 29109/2019, 29110/2019, 28873/2019, 29580/2019, 29583/2019, 29582/2019, 29584/2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.28871/2019 BETWEEN: Balkuru Halu Uthpadakara Sahakari Sangha Ltd., Balkuru Village, Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District – 576 211. Represented by its C.E.O., Mr.Yogesh. …Petitioner (By Sri. Mahesh R Uppin, Advocate) AND: 1. Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan

BALKURU HALU UTHPADAKARA vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION No.28871/2019 (T-IT) C/W WRIT PETITION Nos.28872/2019, 29109/2019, 29110/2019, 28873/2019, 29580/2019, 29583/2019, 29582/2019, 29584/2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.28871/2019 BETWEEN: Balkuru Halu Uthpadakara Sahakari Sangha Ltd., Balkuru Village, Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District – 576 211. Represented by its C.E.O., Mr.Yogesh. …Petitioner (By Sri. Mahesh R Uppin, Advocate) AND: 1. Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan

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

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

justice-oriented should be adopted. It also observed that a party should not be made to suffer on account of technicalities. 23. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that an acceptable explanation was offered by the petitioner and a case of genuine hardship was made out. The refusal by the Central Board of Direct

ERAPPA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

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

justice to the parties. Even in such case the condonation of long delay should not be automatic since the accrued right or the adverse consequence to the opposite party is also to be kept in perspective. In that background while considering condonation of delay, the routine explanation would not be enough but it should

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

Bench: R-1.

delay not beyond 60 days, it would come within the ambit and sweep of the provisions and policy of legislation. It is equivalent to Section 3 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, it is uncondonable and it cannot be condoned taking recourse to Article 142 of the Constitution.” 19 14. In the case of Asstt. Commr. (CT), LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo

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

justice and not to defeat it. There cannot be any hard and fast rule insofar as either condonation of delay or refusal to condone the delay. Merely because, no third party rights have been created is hardly a ground for : 8 : condonation of delay. The discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be exercised to grant

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

JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos:21140 AND 39020-39025 OF 2012 (T-IT) BETWEEN: ARECANUT PROCESSING AND SALE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED REP.BY ITS SECRETARY H.M.SREEPADA HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT APMC YARD, SAGAR 577401. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI A.R.VIVEK, ADV.,) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NO.284/1, PARK VIEW BUILDING 4TH MAIN P.J.EXTENSION, DAVANGERE 2. THE INCOME

MRS. PREMALATHA PAGARIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, order dated 23

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

justice. The words “sufficient cause for not making the application within the period of limitation” should be understood and applied in a reasonable, pragmatic, practical and liberal manner, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. The decisive factor in condonation of delay is not the length of delay but sufficiency of a satisfactory explanation. The degree of leniency

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

delay as time barred as return of income could not be condoned after 6 years from the end of the assessment year and thereby foreclosing the processing of revised return. 7. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition and has challenged the validity of the order passed. It is further contended that the letter dated 18.03.2008 which was filed

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.

natural justice or there is failure of justice or the order has resulted into gross injustice. Therefore, while considering the second aspect, the writ power under Article 226 of the Constitution could be exercised subject to the aforesaid self imposed restriction in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution on a well guided principle.” (emphasis supplied

SRI DEEPAK VARMA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice H.N. Nagamohan Das

JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS WRIT PETITION No. 50054/2012 (T-IT) BETWEEN : -------------- Sri. DEEPAK VARMA S/O. SATYAPAL VARMA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/A. No. 10, H M ASTORIAN BENSON CROSS ROAD NANDIDURGA ROAD BANGALORE. … PETITIONER (By Smt. VANI, ADV.) AND : ------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE IV C R BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE

MS. LATHA SHIVANNA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav

condonation of delay has been filed, the authority ought to have proceeded to put the petitioner on notice to enable him to take necessary steps and ought not to have defeated his substantive remedy of appeal on a technical ground. Clearly whenever an appeal is found to be defective the authority ought not to have proceeded to dismiss the appeal

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

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

JUSTICE M.G. UMA WRIT APPEAL No.4020/2019 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AAYAKAR BHAVAN, C.R. BUILDING, N.G. ROAD, ATTAVARA, MANGALURU – 575 001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, BENGALURU – 560 500. 3. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ATTAVARA, MANGALURU – 575 001. ... APPELLANTS (BY SMT. SANMATHI E.I., ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. NAVANIDHI VIVIDHODDESHA SAHAKARA