THOMBATHU MILK PRODUCERS vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

11 by directing respondent No.3 for fresh assessment of their income tax return filed for the Assessment year 2018-19 in accordance with law. 2. The gist of the matters are as under: Case No. Reason for condonation of delay WP No.28871/19 Balkuru Halu Utpadakara Sahakara Sangha Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 134 days in filing Return

SHREE GURU NITHYANANDA SOUHARDA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

11 by directing respondent No.3 for fresh assessment of their income tax return filed for the Assessment year 2018-19 in accordance with law. 2. The gist of the matters are as under: Case No. Reason for condonation of delay WP No.28871/19 Balkuru Halu Utpadakara Sahakara Sangha Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 134 days in filing Return

BIDKALKATTE MILK PRODUCERS ' vs. PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

11 by directing respondent No.3 for fresh assessment of their income tax return filed for the Assessment year 2018-19 in accordance with law. 2. The gist of the matters are as under: Case No. Reason for condonation of delay WP No.28871/19 Balkuru Halu Utpadakara Sahakara Sangha Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 134 days in filing Return

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

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

11 by directing respondent No.3 for fresh assessment of their income tax return filed for the Assessment year 2018-19 in accordance with law. 2. The gist of the matters are as under: Case No. Reason for condonation of delay WP No.28871/19 Balkuru Halu Utpadakara Sahakara Sangha Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 134 days in filing Return

NAVANIDHI VIVIDHODDESHA vs. PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

11 by directing respondent No.3 for fresh assessment of their income tax return filed for the Assessment year 2018-19 in accordance with law. 2. The gist of the matters are as under: Case No. Reason for condonation of delay WP No.28871/19 Balkuru Halu Utpadakara Sahakara Sangha Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 134 days in filing Return

SASTHAVU HALU UTHPADAKARA MAHILA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

11 by directing respondent No.3 for fresh assessment of their income tax return filed for the Assessment year 2018-19 in accordance with law. 2. The gist of the matters are as under: Case No. Reason for condonation of delay WP No.28871/19 Balkuru Halu Utpadakara Sahakara Sangha Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 134 days in filing Return

PADUMUNDU MILK PRODUCERS WOMEN vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

11 by directing respondent No.3 for fresh assessment of their income tax return filed for the Assessment year 2018-19 in accordance with law. 2. The gist of the matters are as under: Case No. Reason for condonation of delay WP No.28871/19 Balkuru Halu Utpadakara Sahakara Sangha Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 134 days in filing Return

BALKURU HALU UTHPADAKARA vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

11 by directing respondent No.3 for fresh assessment of their income tax return filed for the Assessment year 2018-19 in accordance with law. 2. The gist of the matters are as under: Case No. Reason for condonation of delay WP No.28871/19 Balkuru Halu Utpadakara Sahakara Sangha Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 134 days in filing Return

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

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

condoning the said delay of six months under Section 119 (2)(b) of the Act. 11. The said provisions couched

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

condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act or on other issues dealt with herein. 20. The Court places on record the appreciation of assistance by the Amicus Curiae. 11

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA STATE STUDENTS WELFARE FUND

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

condonation of delay in seeking registration was not available. 8.3 In order to provide relief to such trusts and remove hardship in genuine cases, section 12A of the Income tax Act has been amended to provide that in a case where a trust or institution has been granted registration under section 12AA - 10 - of the Income tax Act, the benefit

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/s KARNATAKA STATE STUDENTS WELFARE FUND

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

condonation of delay in seeking registration was not available. 8.3 In order to provide relief to such trusts and remove hardship in genuine cases, section 12A of the Income tax Act has been amended to provide that in a case where a trust or institution has been granted registration under section 12AA - 10 - of the Income tax Act, the benefit

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA STATE STUDENTS WELFARE FUND

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

condonation of delay in seeking registration was not available. 8.3 In order to provide relief to such trusts and remove hardship in genuine cases, section 12A of the Income tax Act has been amended to provide that in a case where a trust or institution has been granted registration under section 12AA - 10 - of the Income tax Act, the benefit

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA STATE STUDENTS WELFARE FUND

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

condonation of delay in seeking registration was not available. 8.3 In order to provide relief to such trusts and remove hardship in genuine cases, section 12A of the Income tax Act has been amended to provide that in a case where a trust or institution has been granted registration under section 12AA - 10 - of the Income tax Act, the benefit

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA STATE STUDENTS WELFARE FUND

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

condonation of delay in seeking registration was not available. 8.3 In order to provide relief to such trusts and remove hardship in genuine cases, section 12A of the Income tax Act has been amended to provide that in a case where a trust or institution has been granted registration under section 12AA - 10 - of the Income tax Act, the benefit

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

11. Yet again, there can be no dispute that the filing of the returns for the assessment year 1994 through to 1998-99 beyond the period of six years, when considered in W.P.Nos.38165-171/2009, by order dated 24.1.2011, Annexure-G, this Court rejected the claim for condonation of delay, which order is final and binding. 12. Thus, what

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