BALKURU HALU UTHPADAKARA vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

10 AND: 1. Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, C.R. Building, N.G. Road, Attavara, Mangaluru – 575 001. 2. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 500. 3. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, Aayakar Bhavan, Adi – Udupi Malpe Road, Udupi – 576 103. ... Respondents (By Sri. Jeevan R Neeralgi, Advocate a/w Sri. E.I.Sanmathi, Advocate) This Writ Petition

PADUMUNDU MILK PRODUCERS WOMEN vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

10 AND: 1. Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, C.R. Building, N.G. Road, Attavara, Mangaluru – 575 001. 2. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 500. 3. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, Aayakar Bhavan, Adi – Udupi Malpe Road, Udupi – 576 103. ... Respondents (By Sri. Jeevan R Neeralgi, Advocate a/w Sri. E.I.Sanmathi, Advocate) This Writ Petition

SASTHAVU HALU UTHPADAKARA MAHILA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

10 AND: 1. Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, C.R. Building, N.G. Road, Attavara, Mangaluru – 575 001. 2. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 500. 3. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, Aayakar Bhavan, Adi – Udupi Malpe Road, Udupi – 576 103. ... Respondents (By Sri. Jeevan R Neeralgi, Advocate a/w Sri. E.I.Sanmathi, Advocate) This Writ Petition

NAVANIDHI VIVIDHODDESHA vs. PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

10 AND: 1. Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, C.R. Building, N.G. Road, Attavara, Mangaluru – 575 001. 2. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 500. 3. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, Aayakar Bhavan, Adi – Udupi Malpe Road, Udupi – 576 103. ... Respondents (By Sri. Jeevan R Neeralgi, Advocate a/w Sri. E.I.Sanmathi, Advocate) This Writ Petition

SHREE GURU NITHYANANDA SOUHARDA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

10 AND: 1. Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, C.R. Building, N.G. Road, Attavara, Mangaluru – 575 001. 2. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 500. 3. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, Aayakar Bhavan, Adi – Udupi Malpe Road, Udupi – 576 103. ... Respondents (By Sri. Jeevan R Neeralgi, Advocate a/w Sri. E.I.Sanmathi, Advocate) This Writ Petition

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

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

10 AND: 1. Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, C.R. Building, N.G. Road, Attavara, Mangaluru – 575 001. 2. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 500. 3. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, Aayakar Bhavan, Adi – Udupi Malpe Road, Udupi – 576 103. ... Respondents (By Sri. Jeevan R Neeralgi, Advocate a/w Sri. E.I.Sanmathi, Advocate) This Writ Petition

THOMBATHU MILK PRODUCERS vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

10 AND: 1. Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, C.R. Building, N.G. Road, Attavara, Mangaluru – 575 001. 2. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 500. 3. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, Aayakar Bhavan, Adi – Udupi Malpe Road, Udupi – 576 103. ... Respondents (By Sri. Jeevan R Neeralgi, Advocate a/w Sri. E.I.Sanmathi, Advocate) This Writ Petition

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

condone the delay beyond thirty days having regard to the word used in the proviso to Section 34(3) of the Act, ‘but not thereafter’. (c) If a request is made under Section 33 of the Act, 1996 before the Tribunal, then the limitation under Section 34(3) for filing an application under Section 34 would commence from the date

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

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

10. The undisputed fact is that the petitioner- assessee made the eligible investment in the Infrastructure Bonds of National Highway Authority of India, albeit with the delay of about six months. The substantial condition for availing the exemption under Section 54EC of the Act, thus stood satisfied. The question before the Central Board of Direct Taxes was not about

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

10 18. Accordingly, it would be appropriate to set aside the order of 119(2)(b) and condone the delay. It is also to be noticed that the reasons assigned while seeking condonation of delay are also satisfactory. 19. Accordingly, the impugned order at Annexure-G dated 17.02.2017 is set aside, the delay is condoned and the application under Section

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

condonation of delay. 7. Refunds are provided for under Section 237 in Chapter XIX of the Act, while the limitation for claim of refund is under Section 239 of the Act. 8. Petitioner being a Co-operative Society registered under the KCS Act is required to have its 6 accounts audited by the statutory auditor. Regard being

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

Bench: R-1.

Section 154 is to be counted from this date.” 10. This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment and is of the considered opinion that the statute relating to delay under the Income Tax Act and under the CGST Act are not at all identical. It is provided categorically under the CGST Act that no delay can be condoned

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

Section 80HHC and 80-IA is a debatable issue, unless the law is finally declared in favour of the assessee by the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court (supra), it cannot said to be inadvertent mistake on the part of the assessee to make the claim as clearly admissible deduction Date of order 24.10.2017 W.P.No.28376/2017 M/s. Sharavathy Conductors Private

ERAPPA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

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

condone the delay. It is immaterial what the petitioner chooses to believe in regard to the remedy; (4) No hard and fast rule, can be laid down in this regard. Every case shall have to be decided on its own facts' (5) That representations would not be adequate explanation to take care of the delay". (c) Similarly, the Apex Court

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

condoned or the defence of delay is to be accepted. The relief under Article 226 should be refused in the following cases. i) MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. BALWANT REGULAR MOTOR SERVICE, AMRAVATI AND OTHERS (AIR 1969 SC 329), “11. In any event xxx permits. In these circumstances we consider that there was such acquiescence in the R.T.A

VASUDEV ADIGAS FAST FOODS PVT. LTD. vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

In the result, the petition is allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe

condonation of delay is not admissible and hence stands rejected.” 11. Thus, from perusal of paragraph 10 of the impugned order, it is evident that it is cryptic and while deciding the application filed by the petitioner under 10 Section

MRS. PREMALATHA PAGARIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, order dated 23

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 5 of Limitation Act, should receive a liberal construction when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the applicant/appellant, in order to advance substantial justice. The words “sufficient cause for not making the application within the period of limitation” should be understood and applied

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

10 out as to how the order passed by the learned Single Judge is correct. He could not dispute that an application for condonation of delay was filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax along with revision under Section