THOMBATHU MILK PRODUCERS vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Sections 80 P, 80 AC (ii) and 143 (v) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned 17 orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to respondent No.3 for re-examination of the petitioners claim with regard to the filing of their respective returns for the assessment year 2018-19 and for condonation of delay

SHREE GURU NITHYANANDA SOUHARDA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Sections 80 P, 80 AC (ii) and 143 (v) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned 17 orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to respondent No.3 for re-examination of the petitioners claim with regard to the filing of their respective returns for the assessment year 2018-19 and for condonation of delay

BALKURU HALU UTHPADAKARA vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Sections 80 P, 80 AC (ii) and 143 (v) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned 17 orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to respondent No.3 for re-examination of the petitioners claim with regard to the filing of their respective returns for the assessment year 2018-19 and for condonation of delay

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

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

Sections 80 P, 80 AC (ii) and 143 (v) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned 17 orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to respondent No.3 for re-examination of the petitioners claim with regard to the filing of their respective returns for the assessment year 2018-19 and for condonation of delay

NAVANIDHI VIVIDHODDESHA vs. PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Sections 80 P, 80 AC (ii) and 143 (v) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned 17 orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to respondent No.3 for re-examination of the petitioners claim with regard to the filing of their respective returns for the assessment year 2018-19 and for condonation of delay

PADUMUNDU MILK PRODUCERS WOMEN vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Sections 80 P, 80 AC (ii) and 143 (v) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned 17 orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to respondent No.3 for re-examination of the petitioners claim with regard to the filing of their respective returns for the assessment year 2018-19 and for condonation of delay

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

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

Sections 80 P, 80 AC (ii) and 143 (v) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned 17 orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to respondent No.3 for re-examination of the petitioners claim with regard to the filing of their respective returns for the assessment year 2018-19 and for condonation of delay

M/S M.B. PATIL CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. vs. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND ANR

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice S.Vishwajith Shetty W.P.No.223253/2020 (Gm-Res) C/W W.P.No.223254/2020 (Gm-Res), W.P.No.223255/2020 (Gm-Res), W.P.No.223256/2020 (Gm-Res) Between: M/S. M.B.Patil Constructions Ltd., Having Corporate Office At 2Nd Floor, Commercial Building No.1, Opp. Income Tax Building, Shankarsheth Road, Swaragate, Pune - 411 042, Maharashtra State. Rep. By Sri M.S.Mallikarjuna By His Gpa Holder, Sri Dhanaji Venkatrao Patil, Aged About 43 Years, Occ: Business, R/O Plot No.10, Konark Aditya Block, Golibar Maidan Chowk, Camp Pune - 411 001. …Petitioner

condone the delay beyond thirty days having regard to the word used in the proviso to Section 34(3) of the Act, ‘but not thereafter’. (c) If a request is made under Section 33 of the Act, 1996 before the Tribunal, then the limitation under Section 34(3) for filing an application under Section 34 would commence from the date

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

Section 119(2)(b) has been rejected on the ground that the same was filed beyond the period of 6 years, while 9 observing that the Circular 9/2015 dated 09.06.2015 does not permit condoning the delay beyond 6 years. 16. The Circular No.014 (XL-35) dated 11.04.1955 provides as follows:- "The intention of this circular is not that

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

Bench: R-1.

Section 31 of the 2005 Act. That would render the legislative scheme and intention behind the stated provision otiose”. 15. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, the AAR was justified in rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation as it was not having power to condone the delay beyond 30 days. Therefore, this Court also does not find

ERAPPA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

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

17 years delay condoned to meet the ends of justice, 2008(5) KCCR S.No.632, AIR 2009 (NOC) 2147, ILR 2008 Kar 4091. Hence, pleased to on humanitarian ground condone the delay as the D.C. order is unjust hence please give the Poor petitioner as an opportunity The grant is free grant and probation period is 20 years

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

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 (AIR 1969 SC 329), “11. In any event xxx permits. In these circumstances we consider that there was such acquiescence in the R.T.A

SRI MUNINAGA REDDY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice B. Veerappa Writ Petition No.25553/2018 (T-It) Between:

condone the delay of more than six months in view of the provisions of Section 254(2) of the Act and proceeded to dismiss the application. It is also not in dispute that during the process, there was a delay of 11 months 17

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

Section 139 of the Act. From the assessment orders, it is evident that the income of the assessee mandated the filing of returns of income for both the assessment years. The assessee had furnished an email ID for communication of notices, and the Assessing Officer issued notices to the email ID available in the income-tax database

M/S CONFIDENT GROUP vs. MR. AKHIL C

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N S SANJAY GOWDA

condonation of delay, which came to be rejected on 28.05.2019 and the application filed to set aside the order placing the judgment debtors exparte, also came to be rejected by order dated 05.07.2019. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the decree holder, District Commission by order dated 23.10.2019 - Annexure-J (hereinafter referred to as 'original order') allowed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S GOLF VIEW HOMES LTD

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 36 of the Act was to be considered. Another is that, if on one part CIT (Appeals) which allows the claim on the ground that no evidence was produced to show the nexus and on the other part, if CIT (Appeals) does find the activity of the assessee inter alia for acquiring property rights in M/s. Diamond District

M/S HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as

Bench: JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA,S.SUJATHA

condoned by the appellate authority and the same came : 11 : to be rejected in further appeal before the ITAT. The assessee was under a bonafide impression that a fresh order of the assessing authority shall be passed before further course of action is taken. However, when the consequential order was passed by the assessing officer, an appeal was filed before

RAJIV GANDHI RURAL HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Appeal is allowed;

Bench: The Tribunal Even Though There Was Sufficient & Bonafide Cause For Such Delay & Passed A Perverse Order On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case?

SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 09.03.2021 PASSED IN ITA NO.2388/BANG/2019, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS THEREIN TO THE EXTENT AGAINST THE APPELLANT IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE