THOMBATHU MILK PRODUCERS vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

condonation of the delay. However, reasons have not been appreciated by the authority while rejecting the petitioners’ grievance relating to seeking deduction under Section 80 (P) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that respondent No.3 has not appreciated the fact that some of the petitioners are Agriculturists, 14 doing Milk business, running

BALKURU HALU UTHPADAKARA vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

condonation of the delay. However, reasons have not been appreciated by the authority while rejecting the petitioners’ grievance relating to seeking deduction under Section 80 (P) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that respondent No.3 has not appreciated the fact that some of the petitioners are Agriculturists, 14 doing Milk business, running

SASTHAVU HALU UTHPADAKARA MAHILA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

condonation of the delay. However, reasons have not been appreciated by the authority while rejecting the petitioners’ grievance relating to seeking deduction under Section 80 (P) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that respondent No.3 has not appreciated the fact that some of the petitioners are Agriculturists, 14 doing Milk business, running

NAVANIDHI VIVIDHODDESHA vs. PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

condonation of the delay. However, reasons have not been appreciated by the authority while rejecting the petitioners’ grievance relating to seeking deduction under Section 80 (P) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that respondent No.3 has not appreciated the fact that some of the petitioners are Agriculturists, 14 doing Milk business, running

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

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

condonation of the delay. However, reasons have not been appreciated by the authority while rejecting the petitioners’ grievance relating to seeking deduction under Section 80 (P) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that respondent No.3 has not appreciated the fact that some of the petitioners are Agriculturists, 14 doing Milk business, running

PADUMUNDU MILK PRODUCERS WOMEN vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

condonation of the delay. However, reasons have not been appreciated by the authority while rejecting the petitioners’ grievance relating to seeking deduction under Section 80 (P) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that respondent No.3 has not appreciated the fact that some of the petitioners are Agriculturists, 14 doing Milk business, running

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

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

condonation of the delay. However, reasons have not been appreciated by the authority while rejecting the petitioners’ grievance relating to seeking deduction under Section 80 (P) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that respondent No.3 has not appreciated the fact that some of the petitioners are Agriculturists, 14 doing Milk business, running

SHREE GURU NITHYANANDA SOUHARDA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

condonation of the delay. However, reasons have not been appreciated by the authority while rejecting the petitioners’ grievance relating to seeking deduction under Section 80 (P) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that respondent No.3 has not appreciated the fact that some of the petitioners are Agriculturists, 14 doing Milk business, running

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

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 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) of the Act. The Assessee thereafter preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, while rejecting the contention of the Assessee as regards

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

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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHARAVATHY CONDUCTORS (P) LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

condonation of delay in filing the revision petition under Section 264 of the Act. The delay caused in filing the revision against the order dated 27.11.1998 was of 5 years 4

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

4 losses, disposed of the petition permitting the petitioner to approach the Commissioner who was required to consider the condonation of delay on refund application. 5. On remand, the 1st respondent by the order impugned declined to accept the explanation in the application Annexure-‘E’ for condonation of delay, as sufficient cause for the period from 24.8.2002 to 23.11.2004, observing

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