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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

5. Learned counsel Mr. V. Raghuraman, submitted that a fair and dispassionate view of the facts in the case of the assessee ought to have persuaded the Respondent (CBDT) which has a wide discretion in the matter under Section 119 of the Act, to condone the comparatively smaller delay of six months and allow the assessee to Date of Order

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

Bench: R-1.

condonation of delay beyond 30 days, the AAAR was justified in dismissing the appeal and no case for interference is made out in the matter. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records. The undisputed facts of the case reveals that the petitioner on 27.08.2018 has filed an application in terms of section

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

delay as time barred as return of income could not be condoned after 6 years from the end of the assessment year and thereby foreclosing the processing of revised return. 7. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition and has challenged the validity of the order passed. It is further contended that the letter dated 18.03.2008 which was filed

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

5 reads thus: “if it considers it desirable or expedient so to do for avoiding genuine hardship in any case or class of cases, by general or special order, authorize [any income tax authority, not being a Commissioner (Appeals)] to admit an application or claim for any exemption, deduction, refund or any other relief under this Act after the expiry

ERAPPA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

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

5) KCCR S.No.632, AIR 2009 (NOC) 2147, ILR 2008 Kar 4091. Hence, pleased to on humanitarian ground 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

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

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. Section 12A(2) of the Act reads thus:- “12A(1) xxxx (2) Where an application has been made on or after the 1st day of June 2007, the provisions of section 11 and 12 shall apply

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. Section 12A(2) of the Act reads thus:- “12A(1) xxxx (2) Where an application has been made on or after the 1st day of June 2007, the provisions of section 11 and 12 shall apply

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. Section 12A(2) of the Act reads thus:- “12A(1) xxxx (2) Where an application has been made on or after the 1st day of June 2007, the provisions of section 11 and 12 shall apply

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: S.SUJATHA,HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. Section 12A(2) of the Act reads thus:- “12A(1) xxxx (2) Where an application has been made on or after the 1st day of June 2007, the provisions of section 11 and 12 shall apply