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

201 ITR 501 (KAR) holding that the Chairman Central Board of Direct Taxes, for short ‘CBDT’, was empowered to condone the delay in cases relating to carry forward of 4 losses, disposed of the petition permitting the petitioner to approach the Commissioner who was required to consider the condonation of delay on refund application. 5. On remand, the 1st respondent

CENTRAL POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

201 and as such no hardship would be caused to the assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 14. Now turning my attention to the issue regarding the construction of the levy of fee contemplated under the impugned provision namely as to whether it is in disguise a `tax’ or a `fee simplicitor

M/S MAHRISHI MELTCHEMS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

201 and as such no hardship would be caused to the assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 14. Now turning my attention to the issue regarding the construction of the levy of fee contemplated under the impugned provision namely as to whether it is in disguise a `tax’ or a `fee simplicitor

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

201 and as such no hardship would be caused to the assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 14. Now turning my attention to the issue regarding the construction of the levy of fee contemplated under the impugned provision namely as to whether it is in disguise a `tax’ or a `fee simplicitor

ADITHYA BIZORP SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

201 and as such no hardship would be caused to the assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 14. Now turning my attention to the issue regarding the construction of the levy of fee contemplated under the impugned provision namely as to whether it is in disguise a `tax’ or a `fee simplicitor

SRI CHANDRAKAR K KAMATH vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

201 and as such no hardship would be caused to the assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 14. Now turning my attention to the issue regarding the construction of the levy of fee contemplated under the impugned provision namely as to whether it is in disguise a `tax’ or a `fee simplicitor

MINTENT SERVICED APARTMENTS PVT LTD., vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

201 and as such no hardship would be caused to the assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 14. Now turning my attention to the issue regarding the construction of the levy of fee contemplated under the impugned provision namely as to whether it is in disguise a `tax’ or a `fee simplicitor

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

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

201 and as such no hardship would be caused to the assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 14. Now turning my attention to the issue regarding the construction of the levy of fee contemplated under the impugned provision namely as to whether it is in disguise a `tax’ or a `fee simplicitor

M/S. LAKSHMINIRMAN BANGALORE PVT.LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

201 and as such no hardship would be caused to the assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 14. Now turning my attention to the issue regarding the construction of the levy of fee contemplated under the impugned provision namely as to whether it is in disguise a `tax’ or a `fee simplicitor

DR V. NARAYANASWAMY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

201 and as such no hardship would be caused to the assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 14. Now turning my attention to the issue regarding the construction of the levy of fee contemplated under the impugned provision namely as to whether it is in disguise a `tax’ or a `fee simplicitor

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

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

201 and as such no hardship would be caused to the assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 14. Now turning my attention to the issue regarding the construction of the levy of fee contemplated under the impugned provision namely as to whether it is in disguise a `tax’ or a `fee simplicitor

M/S PRAKASH BUS CORPORATION PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

201 and as such no hardship would be caused to the assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 14. Now turning my attention to the issue regarding the construction of the levy of fee contemplated under the impugned provision namely as to whether it is in disguise a `tax’ or a `fee simplicitor

ECOLE SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

201 and as such no hardship would be caused to the assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 14. Now turning my attention to the issue regarding the construction of the levy of fee contemplated under the impugned provision namely as to whether it is in disguise a `tax’ or a `fee simplicitor

SRI. FATHERAJ SINGHVI vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

201 and as such no hardship would be caused to the assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 14. Now turning my attention to the issue regarding the construction of the levy of fee contemplated under the impugned provision namely as to whether it is in disguise a `tax’ or a `fee simplicitor

M/S TEE ENN ENTERPRISES vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

201 and as such no hardship would be caused to the assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 14. Now turning my attention to the issue regarding the construction of the levy of fee contemplated under the impugned provision namely as to whether it is in disguise a `tax’ or a `fee simplicitor

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

201 and as such no hardship would be caused to the assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 14. Now turning my attention to the issue regarding the construction of the levy of fee contemplated under the impugned provision namely as to whether it is in disguise a `tax’ or a `fee simplicitor

SREE C B EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

201 and as such no hardship would be caused to the assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 14. Now turning my attention to the issue regarding the construction of the levy of fee contemplated under the impugned provision namely as to whether it is in disguise a `tax’ or a `fee simplicitor

M/S. K K BROTHERS vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

201 and as such no hardship would be caused to the assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 14. Now turning my attention to the issue regarding the construction of the levy of fee contemplated under the impugned provision namely as to whether it is in disguise a `tax’ or a `fee simplicitor

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

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

201 and as such no hardship would be caused to the assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 14. Now turning my attention to the issue regarding the construction of the levy of fee contemplated under the impugned provision namely as to whether it is in disguise a `tax’ or a `fee simplicitor

M/S HOTEL FISHLAND vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

201 and as such no hardship would be caused to the assessees. As such contention raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 14. Now turning my attention to the issue regarding the construction of the levy of fee contemplated under the impugned provision namely as to whether it is in disguise a `tax’ or a `fee simplicitor