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

MRS. PREMALATHA PAGARIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, order dated 23

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 5 of Limitation Act, should receive a liberal construction when the delay is not on account of any dilatory tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the applicant/appellant, in order to advance substantial justice. The words “sufficient cause for not making the application within the period of limitation” should be understood and applied

ALTIMETRIK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE TO THE EXTENT QUESTIONED HEREIN, THE COMMON ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 23/12/2016 BY THE ITAT, BENGALURU BENCH ‘C’, BENGALURU, IN IT(TP)A Nos. 36 & 27/BANG/2011 AND C.O. No.219/BANG/2015 (ANNEUXRE-G) & ETC., THESE I.T.As. COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS

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

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 36 of the Act was to be considered. Another is that, if on one part CIT (Appeals) which allows the claim on the ground that no evidence was produced to show the nexus and on the other part, if CIT (Appeals) does find the activity of the assessee inter alia for acquiring property rights in M/s. Diamond District

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

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 36 of the Act was to be considered. Another is that, if on one part CIT (Appeals) which allows the claim on the ground that no evidence was produced to show the nexus and on the other part, if CIT (Appeals) does find the activity of the assessee inter alia for acquiring property rights in M/s. Diamond District

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

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,JAYANT PATEL

Section 36 of the Act was to be considered. Another is that, if on one part CIT (Appeals) which allows the claim on the ground that no evidence was produced to show the nexus and on the other part, if CIT (Appeals) does find the activity of the assessee inter alia for acquiring property rights in M/s. Diamond District

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

Appeal is disposed of in same terms

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 36 of the Act was to be considered. Another is that, if on one part CIT (Appeals) which allows the claim on the ground that no evidence was produced to show the nexus and on the other part, if CIT (Appeals) does find the activity of the assessee inter alia for acquiring property rights in M/s.Diamond District and M/s.Platinum

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

Appeal is disposed of in same terms

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 36 of the Act was to be considered. Another is that, if on one part CIT (Appeals) which allows the claim on the ground that no evidence was produced to show the nexus and on the other part, if CIT (Appeals) does find the activity of the assessee inter alia for acquiring property rights in M/s.Diamond District and M/s.Platinum

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

Appeal is disposed of in same terms

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 36 of the Act was to be considered. Another is that, if on one part CIT (Appeals) which allows the claim on the ground that no evidence was produced to show the nexus and on the other part, if CIT (Appeals) does find the activity of the assessee inter alia for acquiring property rights in M/s.Diamond District and M/s.Platinum

NOUS ENTERPRISES SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.

Appeal is disposed of in same terms

Bench: VINEET KOTHARI

Section 36 of the Act was to be considered. Another is that, if on one part CIT (Appeals) which allows the claim on the ground that no evidence was produced to show the nexus and on the other part, if CIT (Appeals) does find the activity of the assessee inter alia for acquiring property rights in M/s.Diamond District and M/s.Platinum

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.

condoning the delay in filing the appeal dismissed the same, which is contrary to law. The reason assigned by the petitioner is a bonafide reason that they have to collect the Forms from his customers. Apart from that, they had acquired the business of BDK Engineering Industries on 11-10-2010. Within four months of acquisition of that industry

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

36 BELAGAVI PIN. 590006 ...APPELLANT (By Sri. Y.V. RAVIRAJ, ADV) AND 1 . M/S UPKAR AND MAGAR INDIA PARTNERSHIP FIRM OCCUPATION. BUSINESS, OFF.P.B. ROAD, YALLAPUR ONI HUBLI.PIN.580028 REP.BY MANAGING PARTNER SHRI.TAIZUN F MAGAR 2 . SHRI TAIZUN F MAGAR AGED 46 YEARS OCC. BUSINESS MANAGING PARTNER M/S UPKAR AND MAGAR(INDIA) OFF.P.B. ROAD, YELLAPUR ONI HUBLI. PIN. 580028 3 . SRI. JUZAR

SARVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

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

36. Sri G.S.Balagangadhar, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 in W.P.Nos.51033/2012, 51034/2012, 51035/2012 and 2145/2013 submits that the High Courts of 38 Delhi, Gujarat, Punjab and Haryana have already upheld the validity of the amendment in question. 37. Sri T.L.Kiran Kumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Controlling Authority prays for the dismissal of these writ

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

condonation of delay, without considering the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court? : 5 : ii) Whether the order of the Tribunal can be held to be good in law, when it dismissed the appeal of the appellant solely on the ground of limitation without examining the merits of the appeal especially against the background that the subject-amounts involved

M/S. K K BROTHERS vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

36 OF INCOME TAX CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, AAYKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR-3, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD, U.P-201010. 2. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MINISTRY OF FINANCE NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE

SREE C B EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

36 OF INCOME TAX CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, AAYKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR-3, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD, U.P-201010. 2. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MINISTRY OF FINANCE NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

36 OF INCOME TAX CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, AAYKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR-3, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD, U.P-201010. 2. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MINISTRY OF FINANCE NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE

M/S MAHRISHI MELTCHEMS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

36 OF INCOME TAX CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, AAYKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR-3, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD, U.P-201010. 2. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MINISTRY OF FINANCE NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K V ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE