BALKURU HALU UTHPADAKARA vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

9 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

9 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

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

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

9 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

9 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

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

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

9 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

9 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

9 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

9 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

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

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

Section 54EC of the Act, cannot be liberally construed, and where belatedly the said eligible investment was made with a delay of six months, the Date of Order 24-10-2017 W.P.No.54672/2015 Dr.(Smt.)Sujatha Ramesh Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and another. 16/25 reasons assigned by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in the impugned order

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

9 to constitute sufficient cause to 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

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

Bench: R-1.

9 application for rectification of advanced ruling on 23.01.2020 and the same was disposed of by an order dated 23.03.2020 as there was no error apparent on the face of the record and therefore, the doctrine of merger does not take place. He has also argued that once the statute does not provide for condonation of delay beyond 30 days

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

9 : raised as a defence and if it is found on facts and circumstances of each case, then such delay is not to be 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

ERAPPA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

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

Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 before the Assistant Commissioner, Tarikere, in which he had specifically pleaded that the land in question was originally granted to his grandfather one Sri.Bheemabhovi, S/o Dasabhovi. That said Bheemabhovi along with his two sons namely Erappa @ Erabhovi, Dasappa @ Dasabhovi, the father and uncle respectively of the original petitioner jointly had executed

SARVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

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

9 SCC 286. He also relies upon the Division Bench’s judgment of this Court reported in (2013) 1 KLJ 379 in the case of SHAMARAJA UDUPA v. THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, MANGALORE AND OTHERS in support of his submissions. 19. Sri V.Krishna Murthy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.43321/2015 and 43322/2015 submits that the fourth

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

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

9. Section 139(3) of the Act reads thus: “(3) If any person who has sustained a loss in any previous year under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession” or under the head “Capital gains” and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of 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