SHREE GURU NITHYANANDA SOUHARDA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

delay, genuineness and hardship invoking the provisions of Section 80 AC and deduction under Section 80-IC of the Act, could not come in the way of extending the benefit of deduction under Section 80P of the Act. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents resisted the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners and relied

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

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

delay, genuineness and hardship invoking the provisions of Section 80 AC and deduction under Section 80-IC of the Act, could not come in the way of extending the benefit of deduction under Section 80P of the Act. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents resisted the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners and relied

SASTHAVU HALU UTHPADAKARA MAHILA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

delay, genuineness and hardship invoking the provisions of Section 80 AC and deduction under Section 80-IC of the Act, could not come in the way of extending the benefit of deduction under Section 80P of the Act. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents resisted the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners and relied

BALKURU HALU UTHPADAKARA vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

delay, genuineness and hardship invoking the provisions of Section 80 AC and deduction under Section 80-IC of the Act, could not come in the way of extending the benefit of deduction under Section 80P of the Act. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents resisted the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners and relied

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

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

delay, genuineness and hardship invoking the provisions of Section 80 AC and deduction under Section 80-IC of the Act, could not come in the way of extending the benefit of deduction under Section 80P of the Act. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents resisted the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners and relied

THOMBATHU MILK PRODUCERS vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

delay, genuineness and hardship invoking the provisions of Section 80 AC and deduction under Section 80-IC of the Act, could not come in the way of extending the benefit of deduction under Section 80P of the Act. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents resisted the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners and relied

PADUMUNDU MILK PRODUCERS WOMEN vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

delay, genuineness and hardship invoking the provisions of Section 80 AC and deduction under Section 80-IC of the Act, could not come in the way of extending the benefit of deduction under Section 80P of the Act. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents resisted the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners and relied

VASUDEV ADIGAS FAST FOODS PVT. LTD. vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

In the result, the petition is allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe

244 (KARNATAKA). 9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Section 119(2)(b) of the Act empowers the Board to condone the delay

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) of the Act till 31.3.2003. Accordingly, the appeal came to be allowed. 12 13. It is also not in dispute

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) of the Act till 31.3.2003. Accordingly, the appeal came to be allowed. 12 13. It is also not in dispute

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) of the Act till 31.3.2003. Accordingly, the appeal came to be allowed. 12 13. It is also not in dispute

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) of the Act till 31.3.2003. Accordingly, the appeal came to be allowed. 12 13. It is also not in dispute

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SMT. B. SUMANGALADEVI,

Appeal is allowed

Bench: K.BHAKTHAVATSALA,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

delay in filing the appeal was condoned and the appeal was admitted. 6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties in this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the Revenue reiterated the grounds as urged in the memorandum of appeal. He also 7 ITA No.5049/2010 submits that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) though held that the assessee

P. D. PONNAPPA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

BORALINGAIAH vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

SRI SANJAY JAYARAM vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

SMT. V.KRISHNAMMA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

RAMA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER