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

23. … Petitioner (By Sri. S. Shankar, Senior Advocate as Amicus Curiae Sri. S. Parthasarathi, Advocate) And: 1. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(2) Aayakar Bhavan, Mysore - 10. 2. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, No.21/16, Aayakar Bhavan, Residency Road, Nazarbad, Mysore - 570 010. … Respondents (By Sri. E. I. Sanmathi, Advocate) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles

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

Bench: R-1.

Section 100 of the CGST Act, 2017. We also hold that the ROM rejection order dated 23-03-2020 does not merge with the original advance ruling dated 21-09-2019. Since the appeal is not maintainable, the question of addressing the issues raised in appeal does not arise. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before this Court

ERAPPA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

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

23. From a consideration of the view taken by this Court through the decisions cited supra the position is clear that, by and large, a liberal approach is to be taken in the matter of condonation of delay. The consideration for condonation of delay would not depend on the status of the party namely the Government or the public bodies

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

10 : party. The principle is to a great extent similar to though not identical with, the exercise of discretion in the court of chancery. The principle has been clearly state by Sri.Barnes Peacock in Lindsay Petroleum Company Vs Prosper Armstrong Hurd, Abraham Farewall, and John Kemp (1874) 5 PC 221 at p.239 as follows: “Now the doctrine of laches

MRS. PREMALATHA PAGARIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, order dated 23

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

23. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the specific grounds raised by the appellant on merits of the matter on the facts and circumstances of the case? 24. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in not setting aside the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act wherein the income was computed

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

23, BCI Estate, 6th Main, Old Madras Road, Bangalore-560 016. …RESPONDENT (By Sri. Ganesh H. Kempanna, Advocate) 2 This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order dated 7.3.2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 32772/2009. This Writ Appeal coming on for Orders this day, the Court delivered

M/S. THE KOLAR & CHICKBALLAPUR vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

10(1), UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE-560027 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADV.) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 27.02.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.351/BANG/2014, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007 PRAYING TO 1. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. 2. ALLOW THE APPEAL

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

delay of 46 days in filing the above captioned appeals, is condoned. 2. The Revenue have filed the present appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act], impugning a common order dated 08.11.2024 [impugned order], passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [Tribunal] in ITA No.1367/Bang/2024 in respect of the Assessment Year

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

23 - 10. In Canara Housing Development Company, supra, the coordinate Bench of this Court while considering proceedings under Section 263 of the Act vis-à-vis proceedings under Section 153A of the Act, has observed thus: “10. Section 153A of the Act starts with a non obstante clause. The fetters imposed upon the Assessing Officer by the strict procedure

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

23 - 10. In Canara Housing Development Company, supra, the coordinate Bench of this Court while considering proceedings under Section 263 of the Act vis-à-vis proceedings under Section 153A of the Act, has observed thus: “10. Section 153A of the Act starts with a non obstante clause. The fetters imposed upon the Assessing Officer by the strict procedure

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

23 - 10. In Canara Housing Development Company, supra, the coordinate Bench of this Court while considering proceedings under Section 263 of the Act vis-à-vis proceedings under Section 153A of the Act, has observed thus: “10. Section 153A of the Act starts with a non obstante clause. The fetters imposed upon the Assessing Officer by the strict procedure

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

23 - 10. In Canara Housing Development Company, supra, the coordinate Bench of this Court while considering proceedings under Section 263 of the Act vis-à-vis proceedings under Section 153A of the Act, has observed thus: “10. Section 153A of the Act starts with a non obstante clause. The fetters imposed upon the Assessing Officer by the strict procedure

THE PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

23 - 10. In Canara Housing Development Company, supra, the coordinate Bench of this Court while considering proceedings under Section 263 of the Act vis-à-vis proceedings under Section 153A of the Act, has observed thus: “10. Section 153A of the Act starts with a non obstante clause. The fetters imposed upon the Assessing Officer by the strict procedure

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

23 - 10. In Canara Housing Development Company, supra, the coordinate Bench of this Court while considering proceedings under Section 263 of the Act vis-à-vis proceedings under Section 153A of the Act, has observed thus: “10. Section 153A of the Act starts with a non obstante clause. The fetters imposed upon the Assessing Officer by the strict procedure

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

23 - 10. In Canara Housing Development Company, supra, the coordinate Bench of this Court while considering proceedings under Section 263 of the Act vis-à-vis proceedings under Section 153A of the Act, has observed thus: “10. Section 153A of the Act starts with a non obstante clause. The fetters imposed upon the Assessing Officer by the strict procedure

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

23 - 10. In Canara Housing Development Company, supra, the coordinate Bench of this Court while considering proceedings under Section 263 of the Act vis-à-vis proceedings under Section 153A of the Act, has observed thus: “10. Section 153A of the Act starts with a non obstante clause. The fetters imposed upon the Assessing Officer by the strict procedure

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

23 - 10. In Canara Housing Development Company, supra, the coordinate Bench of this Court while considering proceedings under Section 263 of the Act vis-à-vis proceedings under Section 153A of the Act, has observed thus: “10. Section 153A of the Act starts with a non obstante clause. The fetters imposed upon the Assessing Officer by the strict procedure

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

23 - 10. In Canara Housing Development Company, supra, the coordinate Bench of this Court while considering proceedings under Section 263 of the Act vis-à-vis proceedings under Section 153A of the Act, has observed thus: “10. Section 153A of the Act starts with a non obstante clause. The fetters imposed upon the Assessing Officer by the strict procedure