SHREE GURU NITHYANANDA SOUHARDA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

condonation of delay in filing their respective returns before the authority to claim deduction under Section 80P of the Act or not? 8. Undisputed facts are that, petitioners’ Societies which has actively commenced only during the financial year 2017-2018 and the assessment year being 2018-19 and for the first time, they have filed returns under Section 139

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

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

condonation of delay in filing their respective returns before the authority to claim deduction under Section 80P of the Act or not? 8. Undisputed facts are that, petitioners’ Societies which has actively commenced only during the financial year 2017-2018 and the assessment year being 2018-19 and for the first time, they have filed returns under Section 139

SASTHAVU HALU UTHPADAKARA MAHILA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

condonation of delay in filing their respective returns before the authority to claim deduction under Section 80P of the Act or not? 8. Undisputed facts are that, petitioners’ Societies which has actively commenced only during the financial year 2017-2018 and the assessment year being 2018-19 and for the first time, they have filed returns under Section 139

BALKURU HALU UTHPADAKARA vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

condonation of delay in filing their respective returns before the authority to claim deduction under Section 80P of the Act or not? 8. Undisputed facts are that, petitioners’ Societies which has actively commenced only during the financial year 2017-2018 and the assessment year being 2018-19 and for the first time, they have filed returns under Section 139

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

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

condonation of delay in filing their respective returns before the authority to claim deduction under Section 80P of the Act or not? 8. Undisputed facts are that, petitioners’ Societies which has actively commenced only during the financial year 2017-2018 and the assessment year being 2018-19 and for the first time, they have filed returns under Section 139

PADUMUNDU MILK PRODUCERS WOMEN vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

condonation of delay in filing their respective returns before the authority to claim deduction under Section 80P of the Act or not? 8. Undisputed facts are that, petitioners’ Societies which has actively commenced only during the financial year 2017-2018 and the assessment year being 2018-19 and for the first time, they have filed returns under Section 139

NAVANIDHI VIVIDHODDESHA vs. PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

condonation of delay in filing their respective returns before the authority to claim deduction under Section 80P of the Act or not? 8. Undisputed facts are that, petitioners’ Societies which has actively commenced only during the financial year 2017-2018 and the assessment year being 2018-19 and for the first time, they have filed returns under Section 139

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

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

Section 139 of the Act on 23.11.2004 along with an application to condone the delay by invoking Section 119(2)(b) of the Act read

M/S SHARAVATHY CONDUCTORS vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari W.P.No.28376/2017 (T-It) Between

condonation of delay in filing the revised return of income for the Assessment Year 1997-98 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act'). Date of order 24.10.2017 W.P.No.28376/2017 M/s. Sharavathy Conductors Private Limited vs. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. 3/13 2. The operative portion of the impugned order dated

M/S UNIQUE SHELTERS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

condoning the delay in filing the returns under Subsection (4) of Section 139 of the Act, though required to submit

M/S. DEEPAK CABLES (INDIA) LTD vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

condoning the delay in not filing the return of income within the period prescribed under Section 139 (1) of the Act by addressing

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products Ltd., [ITA No.36/2009, D.D. 29.10.2010] has held thus: “9. What Section 153A contemplates is that, notwithstanding

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products Ltd., [ITA No.36/2009, D.D. 29.10.2010] has held thus: “9. What Section 153A contemplates is that, notwithstanding

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) vs. M/S. DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT PVT. LTD.,

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products Ltd., [ITA No.36/2009, D.D. 29.10.2010] has held thus: “9. What Section 153A contemplates is that, notwithstanding

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products Ltd., [ITA No.36/2009, D.D. 29.10.2010] has held thus: “9. What Section 153A contemplates is that, notwithstanding

THE PR. COMMISIONER INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products Ltd., [ITA No.36/2009, D.D. 29.10.2010] has held thus: “9. What Section 153A contemplates is that, notwithstanding

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products Ltd., [ITA No.36/2009, D.D. 29.10.2010] has held thus: “9. What Section 153A contemplates is that, notwithstanding