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

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

10 AND: 1. Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, C.R. Building, N.G. Road, Attavara, Mangaluru – 575 001. 2. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 500. 3. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, Aayakar Bhavan, Adi – Udupi Malpe Road, Udupi – 576 103. ... Respondents (By Sri. Jeevan R Neeralgi, Advocate a/w Sri. E.I.Sanmathi, Advocate) This Writ Petition

SHREE GURU NITHYANANDA SOUHARDA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

10 AND: 1. Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, C.R. Building, N.G. Road, Attavara, Mangaluru – 575 001. 2. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 500. 3. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, Aayakar Bhavan, Adi – Udupi Malpe Road, Udupi – 576 103. ... Respondents (By Sri. Jeevan R Neeralgi, Advocate a/w Sri. E.I.Sanmathi, Advocate) This Writ Petition

THOMBATHU MILK PRODUCERS vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

10 AND: 1. Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, C.R. Building, N.G. Road, Attavara, Mangaluru – 575 001. 2. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 500. 3. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, Aayakar Bhavan, Adi – Udupi Malpe Road, Udupi – 576 103. ... Respondents (By Sri. Jeevan R Neeralgi, Advocate a/w Sri. E.I.Sanmathi, Advocate) This Writ Petition

PADUMUNDU MILK PRODUCERS WOMEN vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

10 AND: 1. Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, C.R. Building, N.G. Road, Attavara, Mangaluru – 575 001. 2. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 500. 3. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, Aayakar Bhavan, Adi – Udupi Malpe Road, Udupi – 576 103. ... Respondents (By Sri. Jeevan R Neeralgi, Advocate a/w Sri. E.I.Sanmathi, Advocate) This Writ Petition

BALKURU HALU UTHPADAKARA vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

10 AND: 1. Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, C.R. Building, N.G. Road, Attavara, Mangaluru – 575 001. 2. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 500. 3. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, Aayakar Bhavan, Adi – Udupi Malpe Road, Udupi – 576 103. ... Respondents (By Sri. Jeevan R Neeralgi, Advocate a/w Sri. E.I.Sanmathi, Advocate) This Writ Petition

SASTHAVU HALU UTHPADAKARA MAHILA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

10 AND: 1. Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, C.R. Building, N.G. Road, Attavara, Mangaluru – 575 001. 2. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 500. 3. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, Aayakar Bhavan, Adi – Udupi Malpe Road, Udupi – 576 103. ... Respondents (By Sri. Jeevan R Neeralgi, Advocate a/w Sri. E.I.Sanmathi, Advocate) This Writ Petition

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

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

10 AND: 1. Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, C.R. Building, N.G. Road, Attavara, Mangaluru – 575 001. 2. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 500. 3. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, Aayakar Bhavan, Adi – Udupi Malpe Road, Udupi – 576 103. ... Respondents (By Sri. Jeevan R Neeralgi, Advocate a/w Sri. E.I.Sanmathi, Advocate) This Writ Petition

NAVANIDHI VIVIDHODDESHA vs. PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

10 AND: 1. Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, C.R. Building, N.G. Road, Attavara, Mangaluru – 575 001. 2. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 500. 3. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, Aayakar Bhavan, Adi – Udupi Malpe Road, Udupi – 576 103. ... Respondents (By Sri. Jeevan R Neeralgi, Advocate a/w Sri. E.I.Sanmathi, Advocate) This Writ Petition

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

13. The fact that the assessment order observes regarding exemption under Section 10(10C) of the Act, which indicates that the Assessing Officer was aware of non-claiming of the exemption. If the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of L. HIRDAY (Supra) and the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of RAMCO CEMENT (Supra

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

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

10. The undisputed fact is that the petitioner- assessee made the eligible investment in the Infrastructure Bonds of National Highway Authority of India, albeit with the delay of about six months. The substantial condition for availing the exemption under Section 54EC of the Act, thus stood satisfied. The question before the Central Board of Direct Taxes was not about

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

condonation of delay. 7. Refunds are provided for under Section 237 in Chapter XIX of the Act, while the limitation for claim of refund is under Section 239 of the Act. 8. Petitioner being a Co-operative Society registered under the KCS Act is required to have its 6 accounts audited by the statutory auditor. Regard being

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

Bench: R-1.

10 “95 (a) “advance ruling” means a decision provided by the Authority or the Appellate Authority to an applicant on matters or on questions specified in sub-section (2) of section 97 or sub-section (1) of section 100, in relation to the supply of goods or services or both being undertaken or proposed to be undertaken by the applicant

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:

condone the delay. It is immaterial what the petitioner chooses to believe in regard to the remedy; (4) No hard and fast rule, can be laid down in this regard. Every case shall have to be decided on its own facts' (5) That representations would not be adequate explanation to take care of the delay". (c) Similarly, the Apex Court

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

SARVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

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

10 of the said Rules. 56. This being the scheme of the Statute and the Rules framed thereunder, the interest cannot be awarded without holding the enquiry as to who, the employee or employer, is responsible for the delay in the payment of gratuity and whether the Controlling 48 Authority’s permission is obtained by the employer for not paying

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

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

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

delay of one day in filing the return ought to have been condoned and no powers under Section 154 of the Act would have been invoked. Referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, - 7 - ITO vs. Volkart Brothers reported in (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) which has been quoted