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

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

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

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

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

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

K M CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI LTD 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

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

14. Taking note of the peculiar facts of the case, the fact remains that the entitlement of exemption under Section 10(10C) of the Act was noticed by the Assessing Officer. In fact the petitioner had also sought relief of rectification by way of letter dated 18.03.2008. As no order appears to have been passed on the letter

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

Bench: R-1.

10 “95 (a) “advance ruling” means a decision provided by the Authority or the Appellate Authority to an applicant on matters or on questions specified in sub-section (2) of section 97 or sub-section (1) of section 100, in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant

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

condone the delay and therefore, its rejection is perverse. 13. It is the case of the petitioner that the sale of agricultural produce of its members is the only source of income, entitled to a deduction under Section 80P (2)(iii) of the Act, but it is for the 1st respondent to process the return filed by the petitioner

ERAPPA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

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

14 the nature of indicating “sufficient cause” to justify the delay which will depend on the backdrop of each case and will have to be weighed carefully by the Courts based on the fact situation. In Katiji the entire conspectus relating to condonation of delay has been kept in focus. However, what cannot also be lost sight is that

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

14. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. Discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. In the event that the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, delay

MRS. PREMALATHA PAGARIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, order dated 23

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

14,040/- against the returned income of Rs.4,24,480/-. The Assessing Officer assessed the income of the assessee under Section 143(1) of the Act and demanded Rs.1,44,170/-. 3. The assessee thereupon filed the request for 5 rectification under Section 154 of the Act and revise the demand raised by the Assessing Officer. The aforesaid request

ALTIMETRIK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

14. The cross objection has been filed by the assessee after a delay of 1760 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit in which the assessee has made the following submissions in support of his request for condonation of delay as per para-9 & 10 of the affidavit, as reproduced below

THE CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES vs. MR. GOPAL S HEBBALLI

Appeals are dismissed as not

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice K. Natarajan Criminal Appeal No.100124/2022 C/W Criminal Appeal Nos. 100123/2022, 100125/2022, 100126/2022, 100127/2022, 100130/2022, 100131/2022, 100132/2022, 100133/2022, 100134/2022, 100135/2022, 100136/2022, 100137/2022, 100138/2022, 100139/2022, 100140/2022, 100141/2022, 100142/2022, 100143/2022, 100144/2022, 100145/2022, 100172/2022, 100173/2022, 100026/2022, 100077/2022, 100078/2022, 100079/2022, 100080/2022, 100081/2022, 100082/2022, 100083/2022, 100084/2022, 100085/2022, 100086/2022, 100090/2022, 100091/2022, 100092/2022, 100093/2022, 100094/2022, 100095/2022, 100114/2022

10. In view of the judgments above and provisions of Section 258 of Cr.P.C., let me see the order under challenge in these appeals falls in any of these categories. The order under appeals is as under: 46 “ Complainant and Ld. Counsel for complainant present and filed memo with enclosure and prayed to close the case of action becomes infructuous

SRI MUNINAGA REDDY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice B. Veerappa Writ Petition No.25553/2018 (T-It) Between:

14,93,587/-. Thereafter, the said order was subject-mater of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax who after considering the arguments of both the parties, by an order dated 2.3.2012 dismissed the appeal on merits. The same was reaffirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 13.1.2015. The petitioner filed Misc.Petition in ITA.No.860/Bang/2012 on 30.12.2016 to review