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

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

BIDKALKATTE MILK PRODUCERS ' 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

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

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

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

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. 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

condonation of delay under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act is enclosed at Annexure-F. 6. The respondent – Authority

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 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

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

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 264 of the Act, was the order dated 27.11.1998. Moreover there was also an application for condonation of delay filed along with the said revision application and the application was rejected on merits holding that no sufficient cause was shown for condoning the delay. 6

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

condonation of delay. 7. Refunds are provided for under Section 237 in Chapter XIX of the Act, while the limitation for claim of refund is under Section 239 of the Act. 8. Petitioner being a Co-operative Society registered under the KCS Act is required to have its 6

R. RAMAKRISHNAN vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

Appeal is allowed in part

Bench: S.SUJATHA,SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

6 - applications/claims for condonation of delay under Section 119[2][b] of the Act which were pending as on the date

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

ERAPPA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

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

Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 before the Assistant Commissioner, Tarikere, in which he had specifically pleaded that the land in question was originally granted to his grandfather one Sri.Bheemabhovi, S/o Dasabhovi. That said Bheemabhovi along with his two sons namely Erappa @ Erabhovi, Dasappa @ Dasabhovi, the father and uncle respectively of the original petitioner jointly had executed