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

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

30 days in filing Return. Situated in a small village. Mistake in the PAN number. Hence there is a delay. WP No. 29580/2019 K.M. Credit Souhardha Sahakari Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 79 days in filing Return. Situated in a small village. New Co-Operative Society. Turn over is less than one crore. Not aware

NAVANIDHI VIVIDHODDESHA vs. PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

30 days in filing Return. Situated in a small village. Mistake in the PAN number. Hence there is a delay. WP No. 29580/2019 K.M. Credit Souhardha Sahakari Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 79 days in filing Return. Situated in a small village. New Co-Operative Society. Turn over is less than one crore. Not aware

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

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

30 days in filing Return. Situated in a small village. Mistake in the PAN number. Hence there is a delay. WP No. 29580/2019 K.M. Credit Souhardha Sahakari Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 79 days in filing Return. Situated in a small village. New Co-Operative Society. Turn over is less than one crore. Not aware

SASTHAVU HALU UTHPADAKARA MAHILA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

30 days in filing Return. Situated in a small village. Mistake in the PAN number. Hence there is a delay. WP No. 29580/2019 K.M. Credit Souhardha Sahakari Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 79 days in filing Return. Situated in a small village. New Co-Operative Society. Turn over is less than one crore. Not aware

BALKURU HALU UTHPADAKARA vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

30 days in filing Return. Situated in a small village. Mistake in the PAN number. Hence there is a delay. WP No. 29580/2019 K.M. Credit Souhardha Sahakari Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 79 days in filing Return. Situated in a small village. New Co-Operative Society. Turn over is less than one crore. Not aware

SHREE GURU NITHYANANDA SOUHARDA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

30 days in filing Return. Situated in a small village. Mistake in the PAN number. Hence there is a delay. WP No. 29580/2019 K.M. Credit Souhardha Sahakari Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 79 days in filing Return. Situated in a small village. New Co-Operative Society. Turn over is less than one crore. Not aware

PADUMUNDU MILK PRODUCERS WOMEN vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

30 days in filing Return. Situated in a small village. Mistake in the PAN number. Hence there is a delay. WP No. 29580/2019 K.M. Credit Souhardha Sahakari Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 79 days in filing Return. Situated in a small village. New Co-Operative Society. Turn over is less than one crore. Not aware

THOMBATHU MILK PRODUCERS vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

30 days in filing Return. Situated in a small village. Mistake in the PAN number. Hence there is a delay. WP No. 29580/2019 K.M. Credit Souhardha Sahakari Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 79 days in filing Return. Situated in a small village. New Co-Operative Society. Turn over is less than one crore. Not aware

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

Bench: R-1.

30 days, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should have been filed not beyond 60 days, as there is a bar to condone the delay

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. In other words, where circumstances justifying the conduct exist, the illegality which is manifest, cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in the injustice being done

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

SRI. M SEETHAPATHY RAO vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. Veerappa

30,000/- under Section 78 and Rs.10,000/- each under Sections 68 and 69 of the Finance Act. 10. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent. It is the specific case of the petitioner before the 2nd respondent appellate authority that he is aged about 76 years

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

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 under

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

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

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

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 Income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI ANIL KABRA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Delay condoned. Date of order: 30-7-2018 I.T.A. No.166/2006 The Commissioner of Income-Tax & Anr. vs. Sri Anil Kabra 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

Delay condoned. Date of order: 30-7-2018 I.T.A. No.347/2010 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 under

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

30 CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PLOT NO. 123 SARAF COLONY, KHANAPUR ROAD SHRADDHA BUILDING TILAKWADI, BELAGAVIPIN. 590006 ...APPELLANT (By Sri. Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADV.) 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 AGE 46 YEARS,OCC- BUSINESS, MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. MAGAR AND MAGAR