THOMBATHU MILK PRODUCERS vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

delay, genuineness and hardship invoking the provisions of Section 80 AC and deduction under Section 80-IC of the Act, could not come in the way of extending the benefit of deduction under Section 80P of the Act. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents resisted the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners and relied

SHREE GURU NITHYANANDA SOUHARDA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

delay, genuineness and hardship invoking the provisions of Section 80 AC and deduction under Section 80-IC of the Act, could not come in the way of extending the benefit of deduction under Section 80P of the Act. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents resisted the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners and relied

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

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

delay, genuineness and hardship invoking the provisions of Section 80 AC and deduction under Section 80-IC of the Act, could not come in the way of extending the benefit of deduction under Section 80P of the Act. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents resisted the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners and relied

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

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

delay, genuineness and hardship invoking the provisions of Section 80 AC and deduction under Section 80-IC of the Act, could not come in the way of extending the benefit of deduction under Section 80P of the Act. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents resisted the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners and relied

NAVANIDHI VIVIDHODDESHA vs. PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

delay, genuineness and hardship invoking the provisions of Section 80 AC and deduction under Section 80-IC of the Act, could not come in the way of extending the benefit of deduction under Section 80P of the Act. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents resisted the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners and relied

SASTHAVU HALU UTHPADAKARA MAHILA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

delay, genuineness and hardship invoking the provisions of Section 80 AC and deduction under Section 80-IC of the Act, could not come in the way of extending the benefit of deduction under Section 80P of the Act. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents resisted the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners and relied

BALKURU HALU UTHPADAKARA vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

delay, genuineness and hardship invoking the provisions of Section 80 AC and deduction under Section 80-IC of the Act, could not come in the way of extending the benefit of deduction under Section 80P of the Act. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents resisted the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners and relied

PADUMUNDU MILK PRODUCERS WOMEN vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

delay, genuineness and hardship invoking the provisions of Section 80 AC and deduction under Section 80-IC of the Act, could not come in the way of extending the benefit of deduction under Section 80P of the Act. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents resisted the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners and relied

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

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

5. Learned counsel Mr. V. Raghuraman, submitted that a fair and dispassionate view of the facts in the case of the assessee ought to have persuaded the Respondent (CBDT) which has a wide discretion in the matter under Section 119 of the Act, to condone the comparatively smaller delay

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

Bench: R-1.

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

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

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

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

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 that the petitioner ought to have filed the return on the unaudited books under Sec.44AB of the Act, and that the return of income

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

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

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

VASUDEV ADIGAS FAST FOODS PVT. LTD. vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

In the result, the petition is allowed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe

Section 119(2)(b) of the Act seeking condonation of delay. 6. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, by impugned order dated 16.01.2018, examined the return on merits 5

SMT. P.UMA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice B. M. Shyam Prasad Writ Petition No.7294/2020 (Lr) Between : Smt. P.Uma W/O Siddappa Aged About 58 Years, Working As Tailor No.938, 7Th Cross J T Road, Raghavendra Blcok Srinagar, Bengaluru - 560 050. ... Petitioner (By Sri. M. Keshavareddhy., Advocate) & : 1. The Assistant Commissioner Ramanagara Sub Division Ramangara District - 562 159. 2. The Tahashildar Ramangara Tq Ramanagara District - 562 159. 3. R. Ronald Sebastian S/O Y K Rajanna Aged About 55 Years, R/O No.D-10 Ground Floor

condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 3. The petitioner’s case is that she hails