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

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

condonation of delay in filing their respective returns before the authority to claim deduction under Section 80P of the Act or not? 8. Undisputed facts are that, petitioners’ Societies which has actively commenced only during the financial year 2017-2018 and the assessment year being 2018-19 and for the first time, they have filed returns under Section 139 (4

PADUMUNDU MILK PRODUCERS WOMEN vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

condonation of delay in filing their respective returns before the authority to claim deduction under Section 80P of the Act or not? 8. Undisputed facts are that, petitioners’ Societies which has actively commenced only during the financial year 2017-2018 and the assessment year being 2018-19 and for the first time, they have filed returns under Section 139 (4

BALKURU HALU UTHPADAKARA vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

condonation of delay in filing their respective returns before the authority to claim deduction under Section 80P of the Act or not? 8. Undisputed facts are that, petitioners’ Societies which has actively commenced only during the financial year 2017-2018 and the assessment year being 2018-19 and for the first time, they have filed returns under Section 139 (4

NAVANIDHI VIVIDHODDESHA vs. PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

condonation of delay in filing their respective returns before the authority to claim deduction under Section 80P of the Act or not? 8. Undisputed facts are that, petitioners’ Societies which has actively commenced only during the financial year 2017-2018 and the assessment year being 2018-19 and for the first time, they have filed returns under Section 139 (4

SASTHAVU HALU UTHPADAKARA MAHILA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

condonation of delay in filing their respective returns before the authority to claim deduction under Section 80P of the Act or not? 8. Undisputed facts are that, petitioners’ Societies which has actively commenced only during the financial year 2017-2018 and the assessment year being 2018-19 and for the first time, they have filed returns under Section 139 (4

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

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

condonation of delay in filing their respective returns before the authority to claim deduction under Section 80P of the Act or not? 8. Undisputed facts are that, petitioners’ Societies which has actively commenced only during the financial year 2017-2018 and the assessment year being 2018-19 and for the first time, they have filed returns under Section 139 (4

SHREE GURU NITHYANANDA SOUHARDA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

condonation of delay in filing their respective returns before the authority to claim deduction under Section 80P of the Act or not? 8. Undisputed facts are that, petitioners’ Societies which has actively commenced only during the financial year 2017-2018 and the assessment year being 2018-19 and for the first time, they have filed returns under Section 139 (4

THOMBATHU MILK PRODUCERS vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

condonation of delay in filing their respective returns before the authority to claim deduction under Section 80P of the Act or not? 8. Undisputed facts are that, petitioners’ Societies which has actively commenced only during the financial year 2017-2018 and the assessment year being 2018-19 and for the first time, they have filed returns under Section 139 (4

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX-2 vs. M/S.EYGBS (INDIA) PVT LTD

Bench: CHIEF JUSTICE,C M JOSHI

delay of 46 days in filing the above captioned appeals, is condoned. 2. The Revenue have filed the present appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act], impugning a common order dated 08.11.2024 [impugned order], passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [Tribunal] in ITA No.1367/Bang/2024 in respect of the Assessment Year

DR(SMT) SUJATHA RAMESH vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, the petitioner moved Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide her representation Annexure-E dated 05-04-2013 and assigned the following reasons for seeking condition of delay. The relevant para of her Representation is quoted below for ready reference. “ I am a consulting doctor regularly assessed for Income

SRI S V SRINIVASA BABU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

The appeal is disposed of

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

condoned the delay and directed CIT(A) to re-hear the matter on merits. The CIT(A)-II under order dated 27.02.2009 rejected the appeal for non-payment of admitted tax as required under Section 249(4

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

Sections 4 and 6. Having sought : 20 : for enhancement of compensation only, they filed writ petition even three years after the appeals were disposed of by the High Court in the matter of enhancement of compensation. There is no explanation whatsoever for the inordinate delay in filing the writ petitions. Merely because full enhanced compensation amount was not paid

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

Section 80-IA(4)(iv)(c) could be denied to the items of income that were derived by the business undertaking which were : 4 : inextricably linked to its business operations especially when such items of income went to reduce the element of cost of running of business? iii) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the orders

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

Bench: R-1.

condonation of delay beyond 30 days, the AAAR was justified in dismissing the appeal and no case for interference is made out in the matter. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records. The undisputed facts of the case reveals that the petitioner on 27.08.2018 has filed an application in terms of section

SRI. DEVENDRA PAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav Writ Petition No. 52305/2018 (T-It) Between: Sri. Devendra Pai S/O. Late Narasimha Pai No. 1012, "Udaya", 2Nd Cross, Vivekananda Circle, Mysore - 23. … Petitioner (By Sri. S. Shankar, Senior Advocate As Amicus Curiae Sri. S. Parthasarathi, Advocate) And: 1. The Assistant Commissioner Of

4 scrutinize the matter and issue the fresh order with refund of Rs.1,26,065/- along with the interest expected from your end.” 5. Subsequently, the petitioner has sought to file a revised return. Copy of the application seeking condonation of delay under Section

ARECANUT PROCESSING AND SALE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, these petitions are allowed

Bench: Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

condone the delay by invoking Section 119(2)(b) of the Act read with instruction No.12 of 2003 and to process the return and grant refund of the tax amount. 4

M/S SHARAVATHY CONDUCTORS vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari W.P.No.28376/2017 (T-It) Between

condone the delay even though the case of the petitioner does not fall under the said Clause 6 of the Circular. 4. The relevant Clause, as a matter of fact, in the said Circular is Clause 5. The said Circular No.9/15 dated 09.06.2015 is quoted below in extenso for ready reference: “SECTION

ERAPPA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice M.G.S. Kamal Writ Petition No. 9257 Of 2014 (Sc/St) Between:

condone the delay. It is immaterial what the petitioner chooses to believe in regard to the remedy; (4) No hard and fast rule, can be laid down in this regard. Every case shall have to be decided on its own facts' (5) That representations would not be adequate explanation to take care of the delay". (c) Similarly, the Apex Court