SASTHAVU HALU UTHPADAKARA MAHILA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The short question that arise for consideration in the present petitions is, whether the petitioners are entitled for condonation of delay in filing their respective returns before the authority to claim deduction under Section

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

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

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The short question that arise for consideration in the present petitions is, whether the petitioners are entitled for condonation of delay in filing their respective returns before the authority to claim deduction under Section

SHREE GURU NITHYANANDA SOUHARDA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The short question that arise for consideration in the present petitions is, whether the petitioners are entitled for condonation of delay in filing their respective returns before the authority to claim deduction under Section

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

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

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The short question that arise for consideration in the present petitions is, whether the petitioners are entitled for condonation of delay in filing their respective returns before the authority to claim deduction under Section

PADUMUNDU MILK PRODUCERS WOMEN vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The short question that arise for consideration in the present petitions is, whether the petitioners are entitled for condonation of delay in filing their respective returns before the authority to claim deduction under Section

BALKURU HALU UTHPADAKARA vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The short question that arise for consideration in the present petitions is, whether the petitioners are entitled for condonation of delay in filing their respective returns before the authority to claim deduction under Section

THOMBATHU MILK PRODUCERS vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The short question that arise for consideration in the present petitions is, whether the petitioners are entitled for condonation of delay in filing their respective returns before the authority to claim deduction under Section

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

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

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The short question that arise for consideration in the present petitions is, whether the petitioners are entitled for condonation of delay in filing their respective returns before the authority to claim deduction under Section

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

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

condonation of delay should not be granted as a matter of right to the assessee-petitioner to claim the exemption and therefore, the impugned order does not require any interference by this Court. 7. He relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand and others Vs. Ambay Cements and another

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

Bench: R-1.

7) of Section 154 of the Act”. 12. This court has carefully gone through the aforesaid judgment. However, again it was the case under the Income Tax Act. No outer limit in respect of limitation was provided under the statute as provided under the CGST Act. There cannot be condonation of delay

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

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

Section 119(2)(b) of the Act is enclosed at Annexure-F. 6. The respondent – Authority by its order at Annexure-G has rejected the application for condonation of delay as time barred as return of income could not be condoned after 6 years from the end of the assessment year and thereby foreclosing the processing of revised return. 7

SARVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

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

Section 7(7) of the said Act also provides for the condonation of delay, if sufficient cause is shown for the same

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

7 : 5. The question of condonation of delay is one of discretion and is to be exercised in the facts and circumstances of each case. It will depend upon the facts as pleaded in a given case. It is no doubt true that there is no limitation prescribed for the Courts to exercise the power under Article

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 is a discretionary matter and a fair exercise of discretion cannot be interferred with in exercise of the extra jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court does not find anything arbitrary in the impugned order passed by Respondent No.1. 6. Moreover, admittedly, the claim of the petitioner both under Sections 80HHC

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER vs. KRISHNAIAH

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice A.N.Venugopala Gowda

condone the delay beyond the period shown in the first proviso to sub-Section (7) of Section 7 of the Act. In the said

M/S ASCENDAS SERVICE (INDIA) PVT LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar

condoning the delay and relating back the same to 8 10.06.2020, the subsequent recovery made by the respondents on 11.01.2021 is clearly contrary to the provisions of Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and as such, the impugned order passed by the respondents declining to refund the amount recovered

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

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

condonation of delay was filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax along with revision under Section 264 of the Act. 7