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

Bench: R-1.

condone any delay beyond what the statute permits us. 19. In view of the aforesaid, we hold that the appeal filed against the ROM order KAR ROM 01/2020 dated 23-03-2020 is not maintainable in as much as the impugned order is not an appealable order under Section

ERAPPA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

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

condone the delay. It is immaterial what the petitioner chooses to believe in regard to the remedy; (4) No hard and fast rule, can be laid down in this regard. Every case shall have to be decided on its own facts' (5) That representations would not be adequate explanation to take care of the delay". (c) Similarly, the Apex Court

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

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S BELLAD and COMPANY

Appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar Regular First Appeal No.100154 Of 2015 (Par/Pos) Between:

Section 19 of Legal Services Authority Act which stipulates as follows: “(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of— - 60 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6906 RFA No. 100154 of 2015 (i) any case pending before; or (ii) any matter which is falling

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

19 NO.1082/2016 FOR TRIAL OF THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE U/S 276CC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IN CRL.A.100026/2022 BETWEEN THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 PLOT NO. 123, SARAF COLONY KHANAPUR ROAD, SHRADDHA BUILDING TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI PIN-590006 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI.Y.V. RAVIRAJ, ADV.) AND 1. M/S MAGAR AND MAGAR (INDIA

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

delay of 46 days in filing the above captioned appeals, is condoned. 2. The Revenue have filed the present appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act], impugning a common order dated 08.11.2024 [impugned order], passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [Tribunal] in ITA No.1367/Bang/2024 in respect of the Assessment Year

SARVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

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

19(1)(g) of the Constitution, as no substantive right was earlier created in favour of the schools nor any such substantive right has been taken away. Further it has been held therein that the legislative power conferred on the legislature includes the subsidiary or the ancillary power to validate laws, which have been struck down 43 by the courts

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

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

MURALIDHAR KAMATH vs. THE RECOVERY OFFICER

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice A S Bopanna

delay was condoned by the DRT and if the recall of the order dated 06.03.2012 was made and the matter was considered, what would have arisen for consideration in 15 fact would have been the validity of the order dated 03.09.2010 passed in DCP No.2554 in OA No.394/1995. 11. If that be the position, keeping in view the similar nature

SATHISH KAMATH vs. THE RECOVERY OFFICER

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice A S Bopanna

delay was condoned by the DRT and if the recall of the order dated 06.03.2012 was made and the matter was considered, what would have arisen for consideration in 15 fact would have been the validity of the order dated 03.09.2010 passed in DCP No.2554 in OA No.394/1995. 11. If that be the position, keeping in view the similar nature

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

condonation of delay in filing the return under Section 119 of the Act. It is further submitted that Section 148 of the Act provides a remedy to the revenue and is not a remedy to the assessee. It is also submitted that proceeding under Section 148 can be initiated only in respect of such income which escapes assessment

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

condonation of delay, without considering the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court? : 5 : ii) Whether the order of the Tribunal can be held to be good in law, when it dismissed the appeal of the appellant solely on the ground of limitation without examining the merits of the appeal especially against the background that the subject-amounts involved

M/S HOTEL FISHLAND vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

19. It has been noticed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the indica for levy of fee as indicated in Shirur Mutt’s case referred to supra was too technical and rigid and was not in tune with the requirement of the prevailing social conditions and held that there is no generic difference between

M/S PROCESS PUMPS (I) PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

19. It has been noticed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the indica for levy of fee as indicated in Shirur Mutt’s case referred to supra was too technical and rigid and was not in tune with the requirement of the prevailing social conditions and held that there is no generic difference between

M/S TEACHERS CO OPERATIVE BANK vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

19. It has been noticed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the indica for levy of fee as indicated in Shirur Mutt’s case referred to supra was too technical and rigid and was not in tune with the requirement of the prevailing social conditions and held that there is no generic difference between

M/S PRODIGY TECHNOVATIONS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

19. It has been noticed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the indica for levy of fee as indicated in Shirur Mutt’s case referred to supra was too technical and rigid and was not in tune with the requirement of the prevailing social conditions and held that there is no generic difference between

DR V. NARAYANASWAMY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

19. It has been noticed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the indica for levy of fee as indicated in Shirur Mutt’s case referred to supra was too technical and rigid and was not in tune with the requirement of the prevailing social conditions and held that there is no generic difference between