M/S SHARAVATHY CONDUCTORS (P) LTD vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Honourable Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy Writ Petition No.32772 Of 2009 (T-Tar) Between: M/S. Sharavathy Conductors (Private) Limited, Represented By Its Managing Director Sri. Kaardam Patel, Son Of Late Sri. S.D.Patel, Aged About 39 Years, No.23, Bci Estate, 6Th Main, Old Madras Road, Bangalore 560 016. …Petitioner (By Shri A. Shankar, Advocate)

264 of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru seeking rectification of the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act dated 27.11.1998 issued by the Department in relation to the original return dated 9.10.1997 as on 26.12.2003. The Commissioner of Income Tax had held that insofar as the condonation of delay

R. RAMAKRISHNAN vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

Section 264 of the Act before the Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-I challenging the levy of tax on capital gains with a prayer to condone the delay

M/S KAMMAVARI CREDIT CO OPERATIVE vs. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice H.G.Ramesh W.P.Nos.11624-625/2012 (T-It) Between: M/S Kammavari Credit Co-Operative Society Limited 10, 22Nd Main Road, Jayanagar Hbcs Layout, Padmanabhanagar Bangalore-560 070 Represented By Itssri T.Bhadrachalam Aged About 59 Years Son Of Sri T.Anjaneyalu Naidu

Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Commissioner of Income Tax, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-K. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is unsustainable in law as the Commissioner has examined the matter on the basis of the original return and she should have examined the matter

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 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

SMT BHIMABAI W/O NIJALINGAPPA vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Nataraj Rangaswamy Writ Petition No.200748/2021 (T-It) Between: Smt. Bhimabai W/O Nijalingappa Since Deceased By Her Lr Sri. Revanasiddappa S/O: Nijalingappa Kattimani Age: 63 Years R/O: Naganahalli Tq & Dist: Kalaburagi.

condonation of delay in filing the returns of income-tax for the Assessment Year 2017-18, was rejected. 02. The learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 submitted that the order impugned in this writ petition is revisable before the Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax under Section 264

COMMISSIONER OF vs. MOOKAMBIKA TEMPLE

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

condone delay in filing Form No.10 and consider the claim of assessee with regard to claim under section 11(2) even when the assessing authority had rightly denied claim in accordance with law? Date of Judgment 30-08-2018 I.T.A.No.170/2016 Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) & Anr. Vs. Mookambika Temple. 5/13 3. The learned counsel for Revenue submits that substantial

MR C V MANJUNATHA 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

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

RAJAPPA 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

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

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

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

SRI. GURUPRASAD vs. GOVERNMENT 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 SANTOSH A SHETTY vs. THE STATE OF KARANTAKA

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