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

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

27-10-2018. 12 WP No.29110/2018 Navanidhi Vividhoddesha Sahakare Sangha Ltd Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 147 days in filing Return. Not aware of compulsory filing of Income Tax Return. Hence there is a delay in filing the Return. WP No.28873/2018 Thombathu Milk Producers Co-Operative Society Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 30 days

PADUMUNDU MILK PRODUCERS WOMEN vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

27-10-2018. 12 WP No.29110/2018 Navanidhi Vividhoddesha Sahakare Sangha Ltd Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 147 days in filing Return. Not aware of compulsory filing of Income Tax Return. Hence there is a delay in filing the Return. WP No.28873/2018 Thombathu Milk Producers Co-Operative Society Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 30 days

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

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

27-10-2018. 12 WP No.29110/2018 Navanidhi Vividhoddesha Sahakare Sangha Ltd Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 147 days in filing Return. Not aware of compulsory filing of Income Tax Return. Hence there is a delay in filing the Return. WP No.28873/2018 Thombathu Milk Producers Co-Operative Society Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 30 days

THOMBATHU MILK PRODUCERS vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

27-10-2018. 12 WP No.29110/2018 Navanidhi Vividhoddesha Sahakare Sangha Ltd Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 147 days in filing Return. Not aware of compulsory filing of Income Tax Return. Hence there is a delay in filing the Return. WP No.28873/2018 Thombathu Milk Producers Co-Operative Society Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 30 days

NAVANIDHI VIVIDHODDESHA vs. PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

27-10-2018. 12 WP No.29110/2018 Navanidhi Vividhoddesha Sahakare Sangha Ltd Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 147 days in filing Return. Not aware of compulsory filing of Income Tax Return. Hence there is a delay in filing the Return. WP No.28873/2018 Thombathu Milk Producers Co-Operative Society Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 30 days

SHREE GURU NITHYANANDA SOUHARDA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

27-10-2018. 12 WP No.29110/2018 Navanidhi Vividhoddesha Sahakare Sangha Ltd Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 147 days in filing Return. Not aware of compulsory filing of Income Tax Return. Hence there is a delay in filing the Return. WP No.28873/2018 Thombathu Milk Producers Co-Operative Society Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 30 days

BALKURU HALU UTHPADAKARA vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

27-10-2018. 12 WP No.29110/2018 Navanidhi Vividhoddesha Sahakare Sangha Ltd Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 147 days in filing Return. Not aware of compulsory filing of Income Tax Return. Hence there is a delay in filing the Return. WP No.28873/2018 Thombathu Milk Producers Co-Operative Society Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 30 days

M/S M.B. PATIL CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. vs. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND ANR

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice S.Vishwajith Shetty W.P.No.223253/2020 (Gm-Res) C/W W.P.No.223254/2020 (Gm-Res), W.P.No.223255/2020 (Gm-Res), W.P.No.223256/2020 (Gm-Res) Between: M/S. M.B.Patil Constructions Ltd., Having Corporate Office At 2Nd Floor, Commercial Building No.1, Opp. Income Tax Building, Shankarsheth Road, Swaragate, Pune - 411 042, Maharashtra State. Rep. By Sri M.S.Mallikarjuna By His Gpa Holder, Sri Dhanaji Venkatrao Patil, Aged About 43 Years, Occ: Business, R/O Plot No.10, Konark Aditya Block, Golibar Maidan Chowk, Camp Pune - 411 001. …Petitioner

delay of 131 days cannot be condoned. To do so, as the High Court did, is to breach a clear statutory mandate. 14. The respondent received the arbitral award on 31 October 2014. Exactly ninety days after the receipt of the award, the respondent filed an application under Section 34 of the 1996 Act before the District Judge, Port Blair

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

27 years. Delay defeats equity. This Court exercising extraordinary jurisdiction would be loath to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when there is inordinate and unexplained delay for myriad reasons and one such reason can be of third party rights having been crept in. 4. Question of condonation of delay is one of discretion

SMT. DR. SUDHA KRISHNASWAMY vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax

condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act before the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax - 3 - – respondent No.1 herein. It was contended that the assessee sold one vacant site at Tumkur on 06.02.2012 for consideration of Rs.52,06,000/- which resulted in a net capital gain of Rs.51,27

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

27 HUBLI PIN. 580028 .. RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. ARAVIND D KULKARNI & SHRI. V. G. PATIL ADVS. FOR R1 & R2 SHRI ARAVIND D KULKARNI ADV. FOR R3) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378 (4) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.07.2021 PASSED BY THE MAGISTRATE OF JMFC-III COURT, BELAGAVI RECORDING THE CLOSURE

SRI S V SRINIVASA BABU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

The appeal is disposed of

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,K. V. ARAVIND

27 of 2015 conducted on 27.03.1999 under Section 132(1) of the Act. The notice was served on 03.07.1999. The Assessee filed the block return of income on 12.01.2000. The Assessing Officer, thereafter, completed the assessment under Section 158BC read with Section 143(3) of the Act on 26.03.2001, determining the taxable income. Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before

SARVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ashok B. Hinchigeri

27. He also read out some portions from a Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations authored by Thomas M. Cooley and published by Hindustan Law Book Company, Calcutta and submits that the judiciary can arrest the execution of a statute only when it conflicts with the Constitution. It cannot run a race of opinions upon points of right, reason and expediency

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S GOLF VIEW HOMES LTD

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

27-06-2008 CONFIRM THE ORDERS OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(3), BANGALORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., DELIEVERED THE FOLLOWING: 4 ORDER In both these appeals, the Revenue has approached to this Court

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

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

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

27,150/-. However, no order of assessment was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act on 31.03.2012. The assessee filed the return of income in response to the aforesaid notice on 13.09.2012 and declared total income of Rs.32,56,61,835/-. In the return of income

THE PR. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. GMR INFRASTRUCTURE LTD

Appeals stand disposed of accordingly

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products Ltd., [ITA No.36/2009, D.D. 29.10.2010] has held thus: “9. What Section 153A contemplates is that, notwithstanding