K M CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI LTD vs. PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

13 WP No.29584/19 Padumundu Milk Producers Women Co- Operative Society Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 143 days in filing Return. No knowledge that if the return is not filed within date not eligible for deduction. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners – assesees had commenced their respective businesses during the financial year

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

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

13 WP No.29584/19 Padumundu Milk Producers Women Co- Operative Society Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 143 days in filing Return. No knowledge that if the return is not filed within date not eligible for deduction. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners – assesees had commenced their respective businesses during the financial year

SASTHAVU HALU UTHPADAKARA MAHILA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

13 WP No.29584/19 Padumundu Milk Producers Women Co- Operative Society Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 143 days in filing Return. No knowledge that if the return is not filed within date not eligible for deduction. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners – assesees had commenced their respective businesses during the financial year

PADUMUNDU MILK PRODUCERS WOMEN vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

13 WP No.29584/19 Padumundu Milk Producers Women Co- Operative Society Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 143 days in filing Return. No knowledge that if the return is not filed within date not eligible for deduction. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners – assesees had commenced their respective businesses during the financial year

BALKURU HALU UTHPADAKARA vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

13 WP No.29584/19 Padumundu Milk Producers Women Co- Operative Society Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 143 days in filing Return. No knowledge that if the return is not filed within date not eligible for deduction. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners – assesees had commenced their respective businesses during the financial year

NAVANIDHI VIVIDHODDESHA vs. PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

13 WP No.29584/19 Padumundu Milk Producers Women Co- Operative Society Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 143 days in filing Return. No knowledge that if the return is not filed within date not eligible for deduction. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners – assesees had commenced their respective businesses during the financial year

THOMBATHU MILK PRODUCERS vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

13 WP No.29584/19 Padumundu Milk Producers Women Co- Operative Society Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 143 days in filing Return. No knowledge that if the return is not filed within date not eligible for deduction. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners – assesees had commenced their respective businesses during the financial year

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

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

13 WP No.29584/19 Padumundu Milk Producers Women Co- Operative Society Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 143 days in filing Return. No knowledge that if the return is not filed within date not eligible for deduction. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners – assesees had commenced their respective businesses during the financial year

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

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

13. In the case of Sitaldas Motwani (supra), this court has held that the expression “genuine hardship” used in section 119(2)(b) of the said Act should be construed liberally, particularly in matters of entertaining of applications seeking condonation of delay

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

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

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

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

13. The question of condonation of delay is one of discretion and has to be decided on the basis of the facts of the case at hand, as the same vary from case to case. It will depend upon what the breach of fundamental right and the remedy claimed are and when and how the delay arose

ERAPPA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

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

13 SCC 745 - University of Delhi Vs Union of India and others - paragraph 23 "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

SARVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ashok B. Hinchigeri

delay in the payment of gratuity and whether the Controlling 48 Authority’s permission is obtained by the employer for not paying the gratuity. If an employee has not made an application/s for the payment of gratuity before the employer/Controlling Authority, or if he has not produced the documents in support of his claims, the proviso to Section

MRS. PREMALATHA PAGARIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, order dated 23

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 5 of Limitation Act, should receive a liberal construction when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the applicant/appellant, in order to advance substantial justice. The words “sufficient cause for not making the application within the period of limitation” should be understood and applied

ALTIMETRIK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

condonation of delay as per para-9 & 10 of the affidavit, as reproduced below; “9. In this regard, your cross objector wishes to submit that the Finance Act 2012, has amended provisions of sec.92C of the Act, by inserting sub-sections 2A and 2B. Newly inserted section 92C (2A) has explained that when the variation between the arithmetical mean referred

SMT. P.UMA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad Writ Petition No.7294/2020 (Lr) Between : Smt. P.Uma W/O Siddappa Aged About 58 Years, Working As Tailor No.938, 7Th Cross J T Road, Raghavendra Blcok Srinagar, Bengaluru - 560 050. ... Petitioner (By Sri. M. Keshavareddhy., Advocate) & : 1. The Assistant Commissioner Ramanagara Sub Division Ramangara District - 562 159. 2. The Tahashildar Ramangara Tq Ramanagara District - 562 159. 3. R. Ronald Sebastian S/O Y K Rajanna Aged About 55 Years, R/O No.D-10 Ground Floor

13 guntas in Sy. No. 218 of Ittamadu Village, Ramanagara Taluk and District (the subject land) void for violations of the provisions of Section 79A and B of the KLR Act and for forfeiture of the subject land in favour of the State. Later, the first respondent has corrected the earlier order dated18.03.2015, by the order dated 24.08.2015, 4 correcting