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

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

2)(b) of the Act is enclosed at Annexure-F. 6. The respondent – Authority by its order at Annexure-G has rejected the application for condonation 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

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

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

13 - Section (1) of Section 139 for carrying forward and set- off of losses. If any order was passed inadvertently under Section 143 sans considering the date of filing of the return for losses, the same certainly is an error apparent on the record, which do not require any further adjudication. Hence, the finding of the authorities on this issue

THOMBATHU MILK PRODUCERS vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

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. Newly Registered Society. First year of filing of Return. Unaware of provisions of the Income Tax Act. WP 28872/2019 Keradi Milk Producers Women

BALKURU HALU UTHPADAKARA vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

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. Newly Registered Society. First year of filing of Return. Unaware of provisions of the Income Tax Act. WP 28872/2019 Keradi Milk Producers Women

SHREE GURU NITHYANANDA SOUHARDA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

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. Newly Registered Society. First year of filing of Return. Unaware of provisions of the Income Tax Act. WP 28872/2019 Keradi Milk Producers Women

SASTHAVU HALU UTHPADAKARA MAHILA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

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. Newly Registered Society. First year of filing of Return. Unaware of provisions of the Income Tax Act. WP 28872/2019 Keradi Milk Producers Women

NAVANIDHI VIVIDHODDESHA vs. PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

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. Newly Registered Society. First year of filing of Return. Unaware of provisions of the Income Tax Act. WP 28872/2019 Keradi Milk Producers Women

PADUMUNDU MILK PRODUCERS WOMEN vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

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. Newly Registered Society. First year of filing of Return. Unaware of provisions of the Income Tax Act. WP 28872/2019 Keradi Milk Producers Women

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

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

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. Newly Registered Society. First year of filing of Return. Unaware of provisions of the Income Tax Act. WP 28872/2019 Keradi Milk Producers Women

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

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

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. Newly Registered Society. First year of filing of Return. Unaware of provisions of the Income Tax Act. WP 28872/2019 Keradi Milk Producers Women

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

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

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. Newly Registered Society. First year of filing of Return. Unaware of provisions of the Income Tax Act. WP 28872/2019 Keradi Milk Producers Women

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

Bench: R-1.

2) The order referred to in sub-section (1) shall be passed within a period % of ninety days from the date of filing of the appeal under section 100 or a reference under sub-section (5) of section 98. 13 (3) Where the members of the Appellate Authority differ on any point or points referred to in appeal or reference

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 80P (2

M/S PRAKASH BUS CORPORATION PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

13. The main thrust of the arguments addressed by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioners as noticed hereinabove is that the levy of fee under Section 234E for default in furnishing the statements is in the guise of penalty and there is no nexus to the services rendered by the department. In 100 order to examine

SRI CHANDRAKAR K KAMATH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

13. The main thrust of the arguments addressed by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioners as noticed hereinabove is that the levy of fee under Section 234E for default in furnishing the statements is in the guise of penalty and there is no nexus to the services rendered by the department. In 100 order to examine

ADITHYA BIZORP SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

13. The main thrust of the arguments addressed by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioners as noticed hereinabove is that the levy of fee under Section 234E for default in furnishing the statements is in the guise of penalty and there is no nexus to the services rendered by the department. In 100 order to examine

M/S CATHODIC CONTROL CO LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

13. The main thrust of the arguments addressed by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioners as noticed hereinabove is that the levy of fee under Section 234E for default in furnishing the statements is in the guise of penalty and there is no nexus to the services rendered by the department. In 100 order to examine