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

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

5, this Court has taken note of the fact that condonation of delay is rested on the discretionary power of the authority. Thus, petitioner has not made out a case so as to interfere with the impugned order. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The short question that arise for consideration in the present petitions is, whether

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

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

5, this Court has taken note of the fact that condonation of delay is rested on the discretionary power of the authority. Thus, petitioner has not made out a case so as to interfere with the impugned order. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The short question that arise for consideration in the present petitions is, whether

SASTHAVU HALU UTHPADAKARA MAHILA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

5, this Court has taken note of the fact that condonation of delay is rested on the discretionary power of the authority. Thus, petitioner has not made out a case so as to interfere with the impugned order. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The short question that arise for consideration in the present petitions is, whether

PADUMUNDU MILK PRODUCERS WOMEN vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

5, this Court has taken note of the fact that condonation of delay is rested on the discretionary power of the authority. Thus, petitioner has not made out a case so as to interfere with the impugned order. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The short question that arise for consideration in the present petitions is, whether

THOMBATHU MILK PRODUCERS vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

5, this Court has taken note of the fact that condonation of delay is rested on the discretionary power of the authority. Thus, petitioner has not made out a case so as to interfere with the impugned order. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The short question that arise for consideration in the present petitions is, whether

BALKURU HALU UTHPADAKARA vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

5, this Court has taken note of the fact that condonation of delay is rested on the discretionary power of the authority. Thus, petitioner has not made out a case so as to interfere with the impugned order. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The short question that arise for consideration in the present petitions is, whether

NAVANIDHI VIVIDHODDESHA vs. PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

5, this Court has taken note of the fact that condonation of delay is rested on the discretionary power of the authority. Thus, petitioner has not made out a case so as to interfere with the impugned order. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The short question that arise for consideration in the present petitions is, whether

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

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee submitted that the denial of set-off of carry forward of loss relying on Section 80 of the Act by all the authorities is untenable. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the loss for previous year i.e., assessment year 2005-06 has been quantified by the Assessing Officer which pre-supposes the determination

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

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 with instruction No.12 of 2003 and to process the return and grant refund of the tax amount. 4. That application when rejected led to filing W.P.Nos.38165-38171 of 2009, whence a learned Single Judge

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

139 of the Act. 4. Sri.K.V.Aravind, learned standing counsel for respondent-revenue submits that under clauses (b) and (c) of Section 119 of the Act, it is the Central Board of W.P.10798/12 c/w W.P.46400 & 46852-853/11 5 Direct Taxes (CBDT) which has the jurisdiction to extend the benefit of condonation of delay

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

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 139 (1) of the Act by addressing itself to the grounds urged in the reply dated 26.12.2013 (Annexure-G). However, without even adverting to the said objection, Board has passed the impugned order by rejecting the application for condonation of delay on the ground that no reply had been furnished till the date of passing of the order

SRI DEEPAK VARMA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice H.N. Nagamohan Das

condonation of delay. Therefore the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers. 4. Section 139(5

M/S THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE APEX BANK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 139(5) of the Act expires, the only remedy which is available to the assessee is to file a return and to seek condonation of delay

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

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

139; (b) assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the - 22 - previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made and for the relevant assessment year or years : Provided that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year falling

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

139; (b) assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the - 22 - previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made and for the relevant assessment year or years : Provided that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year falling

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

139; (b) assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the - 22 - previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made and for the relevant assessment year or years : Provided that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year falling

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S GMR HYDERABAD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

139; (b) assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the - 22 - previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made and for the relevant assessment year or years : Provided that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year falling