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

Bench: R-1.

condone such delay and the arguments can be canvassed on merits also. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the following judgments to bolster his arguments: 1. ASSTT. COMMR. (CT), LTU, KAKINADA V. GLAXO SMITH KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LTD.- 2020 (36) G.S.T.L. 305 (S.C.) 2. RULE 60 OF ANDHRA PRADESH VAT RULES, 2005- CORRECTION OF ERRORS. 3. PAN DRUGS

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

Section 6(3)declaration." 12. If the land was not used for the purpose for which it was acquired, it was open to the State Government to take action but that did not confer any right on the respondents to ask for restitution of the land. As already noticed, the State Government in this regard has already initiated proceedings

MRS. PREMALATHA PAGARIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, order dated 23

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

25. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal 4 before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on the facts and circumstances of the case. 26. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in not appreciating that the Assessing officer ought to have treated the return as defective and should have

SMT. P.UMA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad Writ Petition No.7294/2020 (Lr) Between : Smt. P.Uma W/O Siddappa Aged About 58 Years, Working As Tailor No.938, 7Th Cross J T Road, Raghavendra Blcok Srinagar, Bengaluru - 560 050. ... Petitioner (By Sri. M. Keshavareddhy., Advocate) & : 1. The Assistant Commissioner Ramanagara Sub Division Ramangara District - 562 159. 2. The Tahashildar Ramangara Tq Ramanagara District - 562 159. 3. R. Ronald Sebastian S/O Y K Rajanna Aged About 55 Years, R/O No.D-10 Ground Floor

section 25 the KLR Act. The petitioner’s appeal before the Tribunal in Appeal No. 481/2016 is dismissed by the order dated 26.11.2019 rejecting the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay

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

25 IN CRL.A.100081/2022 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 UPKAR AND MAGAR INDIA PARTNERSHIP FIRM, OCC- BUSINESS, OFF.P.B. ROAD, YALLAPUR ONI, HUBLI PIN-580028, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING PARTNER SHRI. TAIZUN

M/S ASHOK KUMAR BACHAWAR (HUF) vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice P.S.Dinesh Kumar Writ Petition No. 106714/2016 (T-Tar) & Writ Petition No.106796/2016 Between : M/S. Ashok Kumar Bachawat (Huf) Plot No.4, Adarsha Colony, Radio Park, Bellary-583101, Karnataka (Represented By Mr.Ashok Kumar Bachawat S/O Shir. Bhikarechand Bachawat Karta Of Huf Aged About 58 Years). ... Petitioner (By Sri B. G. Chidananda Urs, Advocate) & : 1. Union Of India Ministry Of Finance Represented By Its Secretary, North Block, New Delhi-110001 2. The Commissioner Of Central Excise No.71, Club Road, Belgaum-590001 3. The Joint Commissioner Of Service Tax Office Of The Commissioner Of Central Excise No.71, Club Road, Belgaum-590001. ... Respondents These Writ Petitions Are Filed Under Articles 226 & 227 Of The Constitution Of India, Praying To Quash The Impugned Order Dated 29.02.2016/04.03.2016 Is Enclosed As Annexure-D, Passed By Respondent No.3.

Section 78 of the Act, would be reduced to 25% of the service tax, provided the entire amount of service tax and the interest thereon and the reduced penalty are paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said order. The said Order-in-Original is challenged in this writ petition. 4. Sri B.G. Chidanand Urs, learned

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

25. He sought to draw the support from the Apex Court’s judgment in the case of UDAI RAM SHARMA AND OTHERS v. THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1968 SC 1138, wherein it is held that the Validating Acts cannot be struck down merely because the courts of law have declared actions taken earlier

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:

25. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure stipulates as follows: - 28 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6906 RFA No. 100154 of 2015 “The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.” 26. When the plaintiffs have pleaded

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CYBER PARK DEVELOPMENT

In the result, the appeal fails

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

condoning the delay in cases relied upon by the tribunal or different and distinguishable from that of the present case? 4 (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the assessee’s case, the Tribunal was justified, in crashing the order dated 16.11.2011 passed under section 263 of the Act, without appreciating that the CIT had merely directed

WEIR BDK VALVES vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice B.Manohar W.P. No.72328 & W.P.Nos.72395-397/2012(T-Res) Between: Weir Bdk Valves, A Unit Of Weir India Private Limited., (Formserly B.D.K. Engineering Industries Limited) No.47/48, Gokul Road, Hubli – 580 030, Represented Herein By Its Head – Finance & Accounts, Mr.Lokesh Bhatia. ... Petitioner (By Sri.T.Suryanarayana, Adv. For M/S.King & Partridge, Advs) And: 1. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Audit – 1) , D.C. Compound, Dharwad. 2. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Audit), Kumta.

condone the delay. Accordingly dismissed the appeals. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred these writ petitions challenging the assessment order and also the demand notices issued by the respondents. 4. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the petitioner also filed an application seeking for quashing the order passed by the First Appellate Authority rejecting the appeals

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

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

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 200A, which provision is in para materia with Section 143(1). While processing the return of income under Section 143(1)(a) no personal hearing is provided to an assessee and as such the same is also not provided under Section 200A. Thus, the doctrine of principles of natural justice is given a go by under impugned provision

DR V. NARAYANASWAMY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 200A, which provision is in para materia with Section 143(1). While processing the return of income under Section 143(1)(a) no personal hearing is provided to an assessee and as such the same is also not provided under Section 200A. Thus, the doctrine of principles of natural justice is given a go by under impugned provision

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

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 200A, which provision is in para materia with Section 143(1). While processing the return of income under Section 143(1)(a) no personal hearing is provided to an assessee and as such the same is also not provided under Section 200A. Thus, the doctrine of principles of natural justice is given a go by under impugned provision

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

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 200A, which provision is in para materia with Section 143(1). While processing the return of income under Section 143(1)(a) no personal hearing is provided to an assessee and as such the same is also not provided under Section 200A. Thus, the doctrine of principles of natural justice is given a go by under impugned provision

SYNDICATE BANK vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 200A, which provision is in para materia with Section 143(1). While processing the return of income under Section 143(1)(a) no personal hearing is provided to an assessee and as such the same is also not provided under Section 200A. Thus, the doctrine of principles of natural justice is given a go by under impugned provision