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 119(2

SARVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

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

5) of the said Rules states that the claim for payment of gratuity shall be entertained even after the expiry of the specified periods, provided sufficient cause is shown for the delay in preferring his claim. If the employee is not satisfied with the decision of the employer, the employee can make an application to the Controlling Authority within

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

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

2. The gist of the matters are as under: Case No. Reason for condonation of delay WP No.28871/19 Balkuru Halu Utpadakara Sahakara Sangha Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 134 days in filing Return. Newly Registered Society. First year of filing of Return. Unaware of provisions of the Income Tax Act. WP 28872/2019 Keradi Milk Producers Women

PADUMUNDU MILK PRODUCERS WOMEN vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

2. The gist of the matters are as under: Case No. Reason for condonation of delay WP No.28871/19 Balkuru Halu Utpadakara Sahakara Sangha Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 134 days in filing Return. Newly Registered Society. First year of filing of Return. Unaware of provisions of the Income Tax Act. WP 28872/2019 Keradi Milk Producers Women

SASTHAVU HALU UTHPADAKARA MAHILA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

2. The gist of the matters are as under: Case No. Reason for condonation of delay WP No.28871/19 Balkuru Halu Utpadakara Sahakara Sangha Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 134 days in filing Return. Newly Registered Society. First year of filing of Return. Unaware of provisions of the Income Tax Act. WP 28872/2019 Keradi Milk Producers Women

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

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

2. The gist of the matters are as under: Case No. Reason for condonation of delay WP No.28871/19 Balkuru Halu Utpadakara Sahakara Sangha Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 134 days in filing Return. Newly Registered Society. First year of filing of Return. Unaware of provisions of the Income Tax Act. WP 28872/2019 Keradi Milk Producers Women

NAVANIDHI VIVIDHODDESHA vs. PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

2. The gist of the matters are as under: Case No. Reason for condonation of delay WP No.28871/19 Balkuru Halu Utpadakara Sahakara Sangha Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 134 days in filing Return. Newly Registered Society. First year of filing of Return. Unaware of provisions of the Income Tax Act. WP 28872/2019 Keradi Milk Producers Women

BALKURU HALU UTHPADAKARA vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

2. The gist of the matters are as under: Case No. Reason for condonation of delay WP No.28871/19 Balkuru Halu Utpadakara Sahakara Sangha Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 134 days in filing Return. Newly Registered Society. First year of filing of Return. Unaware of provisions of the Income Tax Act. WP 28872/2019 Keradi Milk Producers Women

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

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

2. The gist of the matters are as under: Case No. Reason for condonation of delay WP No.28871/19 Balkuru Halu Utpadakara Sahakara Sangha Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 134 days in filing Return. Newly Registered Society. First year of filing of Return. Unaware of provisions of the Income Tax Act. WP 28872/2019 Keradi Milk Producers Women

THOMBATHU MILK PRODUCERS vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

2. The gist of the matters are as under: Case No. Reason for condonation of delay WP No.28871/19 Balkuru Halu Utpadakara Sahakara Sangha Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 134 days in filing Return. Newly Registered Society. First year of filing of Return. Unaware of provisions of the Income Tax Act. WP 28872/2019 Keradi Milk Producers Women

SHREE GURU NITHYANANDA SOUHARDA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

2. The gist of the matters are as under: Case No. Reason for condonation of delay WP No.28871/19 Balkuru Halu Utpadakara Sahakara Sangha Annexure “A” condonation of delay application. Delay is 134 days in filing Return. Newly Registered Society. First year of filing of Return. Unaware of provisions of the Income Tax Act. WP 28872/2019 Keradi Milk Producers Women

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

Bench: R-1.

2) The order referred to in sub-section (1) shall be passed within a period % of ninety days from the date of filing of the appeal under section 100 or a reference under sub-section (5) of section 98. 13 (3) Where the members of the Appellate Authority differ on any point or points referred to in appeal or reference

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

M/S. THE KOLAR & CHICKBALLAPUR vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

5 - contending that there was a delay of one day in filing the return for the assessment year 2004-05, as the due date for filing of the return which happened to be a Sunday and the next day being Kannada Rajyosthsava Day, the assessee was under bonafide belief that it was a Government Holiday. CIT (Appeals) called for report

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

condonation of delay in filing the revised return of income for the Assessment Year 1997-98 under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act'). Date of order 24.10.2017 W.P.No.28376/2017 M/s. Sharavathy Conductors Private Limited vs. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. 3/13 2. The operative portion of the impugned order dated

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

SRI. FATHERAJ SINGHVI vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

5)The distinction between a tax and a fee lies primarily in the fact that a tax is levied as a part of the common burden while a fee is a payment for a special benefit or privilege. Fees confer a special capacity although the special advantage is secondary to the primary motive of regulation in the public interest. Public

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

5)The distinction between a tax and a fee lies primarily in the fact that a tax is levied as a part of the common burden while a fee is a payment for a special benefit or privilege. Fees confer a special capacity although the special advantage is secondary to the primary motive of regulation in the public interest. Public