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

Bench: R-1.

delay can be condoned for a further period not exceeding sixty days, needless to say, it is based on certain underlined, fundamental, general issues of public policy as has been held in Union Carbide Corporation's case. As the pronouncement in Chhattisgarh SEB lays down quite clearly that the policy behind the Act emphasizing on the constitution of a special

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

condoned or the defence of delay is to be accepted. The relief under Article 226 should be refused in the following cases. i) MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. BALWANT REGULAR MOTOR SERVICE, AMRAVATI AND OTHERS (AIR 1969 SC 329), “11. In any event xxx permits. In these circumstances we consider that there was such acquiescence in the R.T.A

ALTIMETRIK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

condonation of delay as per para-9 & 10 of the affidavit, as reproduced below; “9. In this regard, your cross objector wishes to submit that the Finance Act 2012, has amended provisions of sec.92C of the Act, by inserting sub-sections 2A and 2B. Newly inserted section 92C (2A) has explained that when the variation between the arithmetical mean referred

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

29 AND 1 . M/S MAGAR AND MAGAR INDIA PARTNERSHIP FIRM OCCUPATION. BUSINESS, OFF.P.B. ROAD, YALLAPUR ONI HUBLI.PIN.580028 REP.BY MANAGING PARTNER, SHRI. ABBAS F MAGAR. 2 . SHRI. ABBAS F MAGAR AGED 46 YEARS OCC. BUSINESS MANAGING PARTNER M/S MAGAR AND MAGAR(INDIA) OFF.P.B. ROAD, YELLAPUR ONI HUBLI. PIN. 580028 3 . SRI. ASGARALI I. MAGAR AGED 71 YEARS OCCUPATION. BUSINESS PARTNER

SARVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

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

29. He relies on the Apex Court’s judgment in the case of KUSUM INGOTS AND ALLOYS LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER reported in (2004) 6 SCC 254, wherein it is held that an order passed on a writ petition questioning the constitutionality of a Parliamentary Act, whether interim or final, will have effect throughout the territory

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

Appeal is disposed of in same terms

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

29 of 2013, Commissioner of Income Tax & another vs. M/s.Golf View Homes Ltd., wherein it is held in favour of the same present assessee for the earlier year that the interest paid by the assessee on borrowals which were deposited with the firms M/s.Diamond District and M/s.Platinum City, for acquiring property rights in the buildings developed and constructed by them

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

Appeal is disposed of in same terms

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

29 of 2013, Commissioner of Income Tax & another vs. M/s.Golf View Homes Ltd., wherein it is held in favour of the same present assessee for the earlier year that the interest paid by the assessee on borrowals which were deposited with the firms M/s.Diamond District and M/s.Platinum City, for acquiring property rights in the buildings developed and constructed by them

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

Appeal is disposed of in same terms

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

29 of 2013, Commissioner of Income Tax & another vs. M/s.Golf View Homes Ltd., wherein it is held in favour of the same present assessee for the earlier year that the interest paid by the assessee on borrowals which were deposited with the firms M/s.Diamond District and M/s.Platinum City, for acquiring property rights in the buildings developed and constructed by them

NOUS ENTERPRISES SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.

Appeal is disposed of in same terms

Bench: VINEET KOTHARI

29 of 2013, Commissioner of Income Tax & another vs. M/s.Golf View Homes Ltd., wherein it is held in favour of the same present assessee for the earlier year that the interest paid by the assessee on borrowals which were deposited with the firms M/s.Diamond District and M/s.Platinum City, for acquiring property rights in the buildings developed and constructed by them

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR BOHRA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

29, 2011: “Delay condoned. Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated February 9, 2011 should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases under the Income-tax Act, 1961 in which a common principle may be involved in subsequent group of matters

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MONUMENTAL MEMORIALS

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

29, 2011: “Delay condoned. Date of order: 30-7-2018 I.T.A. No.2927/2005 The Commissioner of Income-Tax & Anr. vs. M/s.Monumental Memorials 5/22 Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated February 9, 2011 should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases under

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI MADANLAL SOLANKI

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

29, 2011: “Delay condoned. Date of order: 30-7-2018 I.T.A. No.897/2006 The Commissioner of Income-Tax & Anr. vs. Sri Madanlal Solanki 5/22 Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated February 9, 2011 should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ICE NETWORK (P) LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

29, 2011: “Delay condoned. Date of order: 30-7-2018 I.T.A. No.462/2008 The Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS) & Anr. vs. M/s.Ice Network (P) Ltd., 5/22 Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated February 9, 2011 should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GANGAGEN BIOTECHNOLOGIES P LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

29, 2011: “Delay condoned. Date of order: 30-7-2018 I.T.A. No.783/2009 The Commissioner of Income-Tax & Anr. vs. M/s.Gangagen Biotechnologies P. Ltd. 5/22 Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated February 9, 2011 should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GEMINI DISTILLERIES

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

29, 2011: “Delay condoned. Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated February 9, 2011 should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases under the Income-tax Act, 1961 in which a common principle may be involved in subsequent group of matters

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI K GOPAL

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

29, 2011: “Delay condoned. Date of order: 30-7-2018 I.T.A. No.798/2006 The Commissioner of Income-Tax & Anr. vs. Sri K.Gopal 5/22 Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated February 9, 2011 should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases under

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S POLYFLEX (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

29, 2011: “Delay condoned. Date of order: 30-7-2018 I.T.A. No.340/2010 Commissioner of Income-Tax & Anr. vs. M/s.Polyflex (India) Pvt. Ltd. 5/22 Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated February 9, 2011 should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MOOLA TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

29, 2011: “Delay condoned. Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated February 9, 2011 should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases under the Income-tax Act, 1961 in which a common principle may be involved in subsequent group of matters