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

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

20-02-2013 of 57 days did not give her sufficient time to make above stated eligible investment in the Infrastructure Bonds of National Highway Authority of India before the cut off date on 26-01-2013 which investment she of course belatedly made later on, albeit with the delay of about six months

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

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

Bench: R-1.

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 after expiry of 30 + 30 days period. No such

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 as the D.C. order is unjust hence please give the Poor petitioner as an opportunity The grant is free grant and probation period is 20 years, not 10 years as held by D.C. which concludes that finding someone who is illegal with reversed the A.C. order A.C. order is perfectly correct view accordance grant rules prevailing kindly

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 under the provisions of Section 10(20

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 under the provisions of Section 10(20

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 under the provisions of Section 10(20

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 under the provisions of Section 10(20

M/S. THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION (R) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeals are allowed

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

Section 139 of the Act. From the assessment orders, it is evident that the income of the assessee mandated the filing of returns of income for both the assessment years. The assessee had furnished an email ID for communication of notices, and the Assessing Officer issued notices to the email ID available in the income-tax database

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

20 RECORDING THE CLOSURE OF THE CASE AGAINST THE ACCUSED RESULTING IN AQUITTAL IN CC NO.286/2016 AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.07.2021 PASSED BY MAGISTRATE OF JMFC-III COURT, BELAGAVI AND RESTORE THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.286/2016 FOR TRIAL. IN CRL.A.100077/2022 BETWEEN THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PLOT

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S GOLF VIEW HOMES LTD

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

10. In our considered view, the finding which is already recorded by CIT (Appeals) and re-produced by the Tribunal in the above referred paragraph at 5.2 as well as the above referred reference by CIT (Appeals), makes it clear that CIT (Appeals) was satisfied about the activity of the assessee as of construction of one building after another

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BELLAD and COMPANY

Appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar Regular First Appeal No.100154 Of 2015 (Par/Pos) Between:

10 - 04 Karlawad 173/1 04 – 24 Karlawad 173/2 04 – 24 Karlawad 122 19 - 09 b. Plaintiffs share is allotted as follows: 122 19A - 09 Gs.-(out of this Eastern portion of 08A-09 Gs.) - 44 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6906 RFA No. 100154 of 2015 c. Defendant No.2 – Venkareddy: 173/1 04A - 24 Gs. 173/2 04A - 4 Gs. AND: House

MURALIDHAR KAMATH vs. THE RECOVERY OFFICER

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice A S Bopanna

10. The third of the above noticed decisions cited is in the context of the DRT dismissing IA 14 No.3469/2012 filed by the petitioners in W.P.No. 15523/2015 herein on the ground of delay in filing the said application for recall of the order dated 06.03.2012 in IR No.3018/2010. With regard to the liberal manner in which the delay

SATHISH KAMATH vs. THE RECOVERY OFFICER

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice A S Bopanna

10. The third of the above noticed decisions cited is in the context of the DRT dismissing IA 14 No.3469/2012 filed by the petitioners in W.P.No. 15523/2015 herein on the ground of delay in filing the said application for recall of the order dated 06.03.2012 in IR No.3018/2010. With regard to the liberal manner in which the delay

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.

Accordingly, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,VINEET KOTHARI

10. KPTCL is required to maintain the operation and maintenance of the transmission system. 16 11. Transmission charges are calculated as per transmission tariff determined by KERC and KPTCL is required to raise bills on every first working day of every month and the assessee has undertaken to pay transmission charges in terms of the said bills. 12. We have

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

10. Under the block assessment proceeding under Chapter XIV-B only the undisclosed income found during the search and seizure operation were required to be assessed and the regular assessment proceedings were preserved. The introduction - 38 - of Section 153A of the Act provides a departure from this proceeding. Under Section 153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer has been given

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

10. Under the block assessment proceeding under Chapter XIV-B only the undisclosed income found during the search and seizure operation were required to be assessed and the regular assessment proceedings were preserved. The introduction - 38 - of Section 153A of the Act provides a departure from this proceeding. Under Section 153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer has been given

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

10. Under the block assessment proceeding under Chapter XIV-B only the undisclosed income found during the search and seizure operation were required to be assessed and the regular assessment proceedings were preserved. The introduction - 38 - of Section 153A of the Act provides a departure from this proceeding. Under Section 153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer has been given