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

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub-section (2) of section 73A or sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, or sub- section (3) of section 74A, he may furnish, within the time allowed under sub-section (1), a return of loss in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and containing

WEIR BDK VALVES vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice B.Manohar W.P. No.72328 & W.P.Nos.72395-397/2012(T-Res) Between: Weir Bdk Valves, A Unit Of Weir India Private Limited., (Formserly B.D.K. Engineering Industries Limited) No.47/48, Gokul Road, Hubli – 580 030, Represented Herein By Its Head – Finance & Accounts, Mr.Lokesh Bhatia. ... Petitioner (By Sri.T.Suryanarayana, Adv. For M/S.King & Partridge, Advs) And: 1. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Audit – 1) , D.C. Compound, Dharwad. 2. The Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Audit), Kumta.

condoning the delay in filing the appeal dismissed the same, which is contrary to law. The reason assigned by the petitioner is a bonafide reason that they have to collect the Forms from his customers. Apart from that, they had acquired the business of BDK Engineering Industries on 11-10-2010. Within four months of acquisition of that industry

M/S CONFIDENT GROUP vs. MR. AKHIL C

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N S SANJAY GOWDA

condonation of delay, which came to be rejected on 28.05.2019 and the application filed to set aside the order placing the judgment debtors exparte, also came to be rejected by order dated 05.07.2019. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the decree holder, District Commission by order dated 23.10.2019 - Annexure-J (hereinafter referred to as 'original order') allowed

M/S HOTEL FISHLAND vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

72 provision does not afford an opportunity of being heard to the deductor before levy of penalty. (h) The impugned provision is beyond the legislative competence of Parliament under Article 246(1) read with Entry 82 of List I of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India since by the impugned provision it seeks to impose a `fee’ for delay

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

72 provision does not afford an opportunity of being heard to the deductor before levy of penalty. (h) The impugned provision is beyond the legislative competence of Parliament under Article 246(1) read with Entry 82 of List I of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India since by the impugned provision it seeks to impose a `fee’ for delay

M/S PROCESS PUMPS (I) PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

72 provision does not afford an opportunity of being heard to the deductor before levy of penalty. (h) The impugned provision is beyond the legislative competence of Parliament under Article 246(1) read with Entry 82 of List I of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India since by the impugned provision it seeks to impose a `fee’ for delay

M/S MAHRISHI MELTCHEMS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

72 provision does not afford an opportunity of being heard to the deductor before levy of penalty. (h) The impugned provision is beyond the legislative competence of Parliament under Article 246(1) read with Entry 82 of List I of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India since by the impugned provision it seeks to impose a `fee’ for delay

SRI. FATHERAJ SINGHVI vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

72 provision does not afford an opportunity of being heard to the deductor before levy of penalty. (h) The impugned provision is beyond the legislative competence of Parliament under Article 246(1) read with Entry 82 of List I of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India since by the impugned provision it seeks to impose a `fee’ for delay

M/S NEW MEDIA COMPANY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

72 provision does not afford an opportunity of being heard to the deductor before levy of penalty. (h) The impugned provision is beyond the legislative competence of Parliament under Article 246(1) read with Entry 82 of List I of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India since by the impugned provision it seeks to impose a `fee’ for delay

SREE C B EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL TRUST vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

72 provision does not afford an opportunity of being heard to the deductor before levy of penalty. (h) The impugned provision is beyond the legislative competence of Parliament under Article 246(1) read with Entry 82 of List I of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India since by the impugned provision it seeks to impose a `fee’ for delay

M/S. K K BROTHERS vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

72 provision does not afford an opportunity of being heard to the deductor before levy of penalty. (h) The impugned provision is beyond the legislative competence of Parliament under Article 246(1) read with Entry 82 of List I of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India since by the impugned provision it seeks to impose a `fee’ for delay

M/S PRODIGY TECHNOVATIONS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

72 provision does not afford an opportunity of being heard to the deductor before levy of penalty. (h) The impugned provision is beyond the legislative competence of Parliament under Article 246(1) read with Entry 82 of List I of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India since by the impugned provision it seeks to impose a `fee’ for delay

M/S TEE ENN ENTERPRISES vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

72 provision does not afford an opportunity of being heard to the deductor before levy of penalty. (h) The impugned provision is beyond the legislative competence of Parliament under Article 246(1) read with Entry 82 of List I of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India since by the impugned provision it seeks to impose a `fee’ for delay

MINTENT SERVICED APARTMENTS PVT LTD., vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

72 provision does not afford an opportunity of being heard to the deductor before levy of penalty. (h) The impugned provision is beyond the legislative competence of Parliament under Article 246(1) read with Entry 82 of List I of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India since by the impugned provision it seeks to impose a `fee’ for delay

M/S. LAKSHMINIRMAN BANGALORE PVT.LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

72 provision does not afford an opportunity of being heard to the deductor before levy of penalty. (h) The impugned provision is beyond the legislative competence of Parliament under Article 246(1) read with Entry 82 of List I of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India since by the impugned provision it seeks to impose a `fee’ for delay

ECOLE SOLUTIONS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

72 provision does not afford an opportunity of being heard to the deductor before levy of penalty. (h) The impugned provision is beyond the legislative competence of Parliament under Article 246(1) read with Entry 82 of List I of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India since by the impugned provision it seeks to impose a `fee’ for delay

M/S PRAKASH BUS CORPORATION PVT LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

72 provision does not afford an opportunity of being heard to the deductor before levy of penalty. (h) The impugned provision is beyond the legislative competence of Parliament under Article 246(1) read with Entry 82 of List I of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India since by the impugned provision it seeks to impose a `fee’ for delay

DR V. NARAYANASWAMY vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

72 provision does not afford an opportunity of being heard to the deductor before levy of penalty. (h) The impugned provision is beyond the legislative competence of Parliament under Article 246(1) read with Entry 82 of List I of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India since by the impugned provision it seeks to impose a `fee’ for delay