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

condonation of delay, without considering the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court? : 5 : ii) Whether the order of the Tribunal can be held to be good in law, when it dismissed the appeal of the appellant solely on the ground of limitation without examining the merits of the appeal especially against the background that the subject-amounts involved

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.

penalty are paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said order. The said Order-in-Original is challenged in this writ petition. 4. Sri B.G. Chidanand Urs, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that; ♦ the tax now demanded is required to be paid by the service provider; ♦ the Board Circular No.232/2/2006-CX4 dated 12.11.2007 relied upon

SRI. M SEETHAPATHY RAO vs. UNION OF INDIA

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

penalty and interest, he has to get registered 9 online as an assessee. Since he has never rendered consultancy services, he did not have the knowledge of the above aspects and hence he has to run to various divisions of the department for getting registered as an assessee in order to pay portion of the tax demand, which

SRI INDUDHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA

condoning the delay by misunderstanding the facts and consequently passed a perverse order on the facts and circumstances of the case? 3. Whether the Tribunal is right in not adjudicating the grounds on the merits raised by the Appellant? 2. Heard Shri. S. Annamalai learned Advocate for the Assessee and Shri. Dilip M, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue

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.

condoning the delay in filing the appeal dismissed the same, which is contrary to law. The reason assigned by the petitioner is a bonafide reason that they have to collect the Forms from his customers. Apart from that, they had acquired the business of BDK Engineering Industries on 11-10-2010. Within four months of acquisition of that industry

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

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

delay of 86 days is condoned and the application is ordered. 2. Respondent is served and represented by Sri A. Shankar, learned counsel. 3. This appeal is filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (for short ‘the Act’) by the Revenue, insofar as the order relates to levy of penalty

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

penalty or prosecution in case of ENP. The delay of six months in filing the return will be condoned and no interest

SRI KONANUR BASAVANNA GURULINGASWAMY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav Writ Petition No. 22515 Of 2024 (T-It) Between: Sri. Konanur Basavanna Gurulingaswamy, No. 2085, 1St Cross, Madhavachar Road, Kr Mohalla, Mysore-570004, Pan : Aqspk3209P, Reprented By His Poa Holder Smt. Dr. Manjula A Patil, No. 2085, 1St Cross, Madhavachar Road, Kr Mohalla, Mysore-570004. …Petitioner (By Sri. Hemant Pai, Advocate For Sri. Ravi Shankar S. V., Advocate) And: 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward Intl. Taxation 1(2), Bangalore-560095. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Mysore-570008. 3. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Additional /Joint/Deputy/Assistant Digitally Signed By Mamatha R Location: High Court Of Karnataka

penalty proceedings. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the proceedings under Section 148 of the Act were sought to be initiated as regards the assessment year 2015-16. It is submitted that such proceedings are time barred. It is submitted that the time limit prescribed for initiating proceedings will have to be read in terms with

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S POLYFLEX (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Delay condoned. Date of order: 30-7-2018 I.T.A. No.340/2010 Commissioner of Income-Tax & Anr. vs. M/s.Polyflex (India) Pvt. Ltd. 5/22 Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated February 9, 2011 should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases under

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ANIL KABRA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Delay condoned. Date of order: 30-7-2018 I.T.A. No.166/2006 The Commissioner of Income-Tax & Anr. vs. Sri Anil Kabra 5/22 Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated February 9, 2011 should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases under

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GEMINI DISTILLERIES

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Delay condoned. Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated February 9, 2011 should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases under the Income-tax Act, 1961 in which a common principle may be involved in subsequent group of matters

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR BOHRA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Delay condoned. Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated February 9, 2011 should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases under the Income-tax Act, 1961 in which a common principle may be involved in subsequent group of matters

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S POLYFLEX (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Delay condoned. Date of order: 30-7-2018 I.T.A. No.347/2010 Commissioner of Income-Tax & Anr. vs. M/s.Polyflex (India) Pvt. Ltd. 5/22 Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated February 9, 2011 should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases under

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. M/S UNITED RACING & BLOODSTOCK,

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Delay condoned. Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated February 9, 2011 should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases under the Income-tax Act, 1961 in which a common principle may be involved in subsequent group of matters

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3) vs. SRI VIJENDRA ALVA M

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Delay condoned. Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated February 9, 2011 should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases under the Income-tax Act, 1961 in which a common principle may be involved in subsequent group of matters

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MOOLA TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Delay condoned. Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated February 9, 2011 should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases under the Income-tax Act, 1961 in which a common principle may be involved in subsequent group of matters

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S LUWA INDIA PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Delay condoned. Date of order: 30-7-2018 I.T.A. No.105/2007 The Commissioner of Income-Tax & Anr. vs. M/s.Luwa India Pvt. Ltd. 5/22 Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated February 9, 2011 should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases under

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S OPTO CIRCUITS (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Delay condoned. Date of order: 30-7-2018 I.T.A. No.177/2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. vs. M/s.Opto Circuits (India) Pvt. Ltd. 5/22 Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated February 9, 2011 should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases