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

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

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

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

SHREE GURU NITHYANANDA SOUHARDA 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

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

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. This court was pleased to observe as under (page 228 of 323 ITR): “The phrase ‘genuine hardship’ used

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

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

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

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

8 : condonation of delay. The discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be exercised to grant relief only to a person whose conduct does not disentitle him to obtain such discretionary relief and from the conduct of the Act, if it is explicit that for such relief, the petitioners would not be entitled then condonation

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

SARVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

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

8 SCC 481, an educational institution is established for the purpose of imparting education, which is regarded as charitable. An educational institution cannot charge such fees as are not required for the purpose of fulfilling that object. In view of the said decision, the petitioners have charged only for paying the salary, etc. to the teachers and not for paying

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

section 92C shall not be applicable in the case of your cross objector as the benefit 5% standard deduction was originally not granted by the AO during the assessment proceedings”. In course of hearing before us, ld. AR of the assessee submitted a chart in which it is Date of Judgment 13-08-2018 I.T.A.Nos.302-303/2017 & 724/2017 Altimetrik

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