PADUMUNDU MILK PRODUCERS WOMEN vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

condonation of the delay. However, reasons have not been appreciated by the authority while rejecting the petitioners’ grievance relating to seeking deduction under Section 80 (P) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that respondent No.3 has not appreciated the fact that some of the petitioners are Agriculturists, 14

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

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

condonation of the delay. However, reasons have not been appreciated by the authority while rejecting the petitioners’ grievance relating to seeking deduction under Section 80 (P) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that respondent No.3 has not appreciated the fact that some of the petitioners are Agriculturists, 14

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

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

condonation of the delay. However, reasons have not been appreciated by the authority while rejecting the petitioners’ grievance relating to seeking deduction under Section 80 (P) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that respondent No.3 has not appreciated the fact that some of the petitioners are Agriculturists, 14

NAVANIDHI VIVIDHODDESHA vs. PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

condonation of the delay. However, reasons have not been appreciated by the authority while rejecting the petitioners’ grievance relating to seeking deduction under Section 80 (P) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that respondent No.3 has not appreciated the fact that some of the petitioners are Agriculturists, 14

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

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

condonation of the delay. However, reasons have not been appreciated by the authority while rejecting the petitioners’ grievance relating to seeking deduction under Section 80 (P) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that respondent No.3 has not appreciated the fact that some of the petitioners are Agriculturists, 14

BALKURU HALU UTHPADAKARA vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

condonation of the delay. However, reasons have not been appreciated by the authority while rejecting the petitioners’ grievance relating to seeking deduction under Section 80 (P) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that respondent No.3 has not appreciated the fact that some of the petitioners are Agriculturists, 14

SASTHAVU HALU UTHPADAKARA MAHILA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

condonation of the delay. However, reasons have not been appreciated by the authority while rejecting the petitioners’ grievance relating to seeking deduction under Section 80 (P) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that respondent No.3 has not appreciated the fact that some of the petitioners are Agriculturists, 14

SHREE GURU NITHYANANDA SOUHARDA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

condonation of the delay. However, reasons have not been appreciated by the authority while rejecting the petitioners’ grievance relating to seeking deduction under Section 80 (P) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that respondent No.3 has not appreciated the fact that some of the petitioners are Agriculturists, 14

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

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

condone the comparatively smaller delay of six months and allow the assessee to Date of Order 24-10-2017 W.P.No.54672/2015 Dr.(Smt.)Sujatha Ramesh Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and another. 9/25 avail the said exemption from capital gain tax in terms of Section 54 EC of the Act. He placed reliance on the following decisions in this

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.

delay not beyond 60 days, it would come within the ambit and sweep of the provisions and policy of legislation. It is equivalent to Section 3 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, it is uncondonable and it cannot be condoned taking recourse to Article 142 of the Constitution.” 19 14

ERAPPA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

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

14 the nature of indicating “sufficient cause” to justify the delay which will depend on the backdrop of each case and will have to be weighed carefully by the Courts based on the fact situation. In Katiji the entire conspectus relating to condonation of delay has been kept in focus. However, what cannot also be lost sight is that

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

14 : delay. He says that the representations were being received by the Government all the time. But there is a limit to the time which can be considered reasonable for making representations. If the Government has turned down one representation, the making of another representation on similar lines would not enable the petitioners to explain the delay. Learned Counsel

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)(iii) of the Act, but it is for the 1st respondent to process the return filed by the petitioner

MRS. PREMALATHA PAGARIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, order dated 23

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

14,040/- as against the returned income at Rs.4,24,480/- on the facts and circumstances of the case. 25. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal 4 before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the facts and circumstances of the case. 26. Whether the Tribunal was justified

ALTIMETRIK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

14. The cross objection has been filed by the assessee after a delay of 1760 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit in which the assessee has made the following submissions in support of his request for condonation of delay as per para-9 & 10 of the affidavit, as reproduced below

THE CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES vs. MR. GOPAL S HEBBALLI

Appeals are dismissed as not

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice K. Natarajan Criminal Appeal No.100124/2022 C/W Criminal Appeal Nos. 100123/2022, 100125/2022, 100126/2022, 100127/2022, 100130/2022, 100131/2022, 100132/2022, 100133/2022, 100134/2022, 100135/2022, 100136/2022, 100137/2022, 100138/2022, 100139/2022, 100140/2022, 100141/2022, 100142/2022, 100143/2022, 100144/2022, 100145/2022, 100172/2022, 100173/2022, 100026/2022, 100077/2022, 100078/2022, 100079/2022, 100080/2022, 100081/2022, 100082/2022, 100083/2022, 100084/2022, 100085/2022, 100086/2022, 100090/2022, 100091/2022, 100092/2022, 100093/2022, 100094/2022, 100095/2022, 100114/2022

condonation of delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act for spending time before this Court. The Registry is directed

M/S. THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS AND DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION (R) vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

The appeals are allowed

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

delay. 8. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the appeal papers. 9. We notice that the Assessing Officer issued notices under Section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15, on account of the failure of the assessee to file returns of income under Section