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

Sections 4 and 6. Having sought : 20 : for enhancement of compensation only, they filed writ petition even three years after the appeals were disposed of by the High Court in the matter of enhancement of compensation. There is no explanation whatsoever for the inordinate delay in filing the writ petitions. Merely because full enhanced compensation amount was not paid

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

condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act or on other issues dealt with herein. 20. The Court

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. In the case of Asstt. Commr. (CT), LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo

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

SRI NARAYANAN KOLLAKKIL KUTTY vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

20 and to condone the delay in filing the return of income for the said assessment year along with Audit Report u/s 44AB of the Act (Annexure-D); c. Issue a writ of mandamus or a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus to direct 1st respondent to give instructions to the 2nd respondent to rectify the defective return

PRL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KERADI MILK PRODUCERS' WOMEN

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

20, passed by respondent No.1 in the writ petition/appellant No.1 herein namely, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangaluru. By the said order, appellant No.1 herein refused to condone the delay and rejected the application filed under Section

PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. SASTHAVU HALU UTHPADAKARA MAHILA

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

20, passed by respondent No.1 in the writ petition/appellant No.1 herein namely, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangaluru. By the said 3 order, appellant No.1 herein refused to condone the delay and rejected the application filed under Section

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

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

20, passed by respondent No.1 in the writ petition/appellant No.1 herein namely, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangaluru. By the said order, appellant No.1 herein refused to condone the delay and rejected the application filed under Section

PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. BALKURU HALU UTHPAADAKARA

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

20, passed by respondent No.1 in the writ petition/appellant No.1 herein namely, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangaluru. By the said order, appellant No.1 herein refused to condone the delay and rejected the application filed under Section

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 SUMAN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5

Bench: The Hon’Ble Dr Justice Vineet Kothari

Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking condonation of delay in payment of 3rd Instalment of the tax amount declared by the petitioner assessee under the Income Disclosure Scheme, 2016 (IDS 2016). 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner assessee submitted before the Court that though the first and second instalments were paid within the stipulated

M/S NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

condoned the delay and directed the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore to grant registration under Section 12A w.e.f. 1.4.2003. The Tribunal also taken note of the fact that the assessee was granted exemption under the provisions of Section 10(20

M/S NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

condoned the delay and directed the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore to grant registration under Section 12A w.e.f. 1.4.2003. The Tribunal also taken note of the fact that the assessee was granted exemption under the provisions of Section 10(20

M/S NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

condoned the delay and directed the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore to grant registration under Section 12A w.e.f. 1.4.2003. The Tribunal also taken note of the fact that the assessee was granted exemption under the provisions of Section 10(20

M/S NEW MANGALORE PORT TRUST vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

condoned the delay and directed the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore to grant registration under Section 12A w.e.f. 1.4.2003. The Tribunal also taken note of the fact that the assessee was granted exemption under the provisions of Section 10(20

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 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:

20 enshrines cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats. Section 21 says ‘award of Lok Adalats’. Section 22 stipulats powers of Lok Adalat and Permanent Lok Adalat. 54. Organization of Lok Adalat is as such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction for the areas. Sub-section (5) of Section 19 of Legal Services Authority Act which stipulates as follows

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

20 RECORDING THE CLOSURE OF THE CASE AGAINST THE ACCUSED RESULTING IN AQUITTAL IN CC NO.286/2016 AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.07.2021 PASSED BY MAGISTRATE OF JMFC-III COURT, BELAGAVI AND RESTORE THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.286/2016 FOR TRIAL. IN CRL.A.100077/2022 BETWEEN THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PLOT