THOMBATHU MILK PRODUCERS vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Sections 80 P, 80 AC (ii) and 143 (v) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned 17 orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to respondent No.3 for re-examination of the petitioners claim with regard to the filing of their respective returns for the assessment year 2018-19 and for condonation of delay

SASTHAVU HALU UTHPADAKARA MAHILA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Sections 80 P, 80 AC (ii) and 143 (v) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned 17 orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to respondent No.3 for re-examination of the petitioners claim with regard to the filing of their respective returns for the assessment year 2018-19 and for condonation of delay

SHREE GURU NITHYANANDA SOUHARDA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Sections 80 P, 80 AC (ii) and 143 (v) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned 17 orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to respondent No.3 for re-examination of the petitioners claim with regard to the filing of their respective returns for the assessment year 2018-19 and for condonation of delay

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

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

Sections 80 P, 80 AC (ii) and 143 (v) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned 17 orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to respondent No.3 for re-examination of the petitioners claim with regard to the filing of their respective returns for the assessment year 2018-19 and for condonation of delay

NAVANIDHI VIVIDHODDESHA vs. PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Sections 80 P, 80 AC (ii) and 143 (v) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned 17 orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to respondent No.3 for re-examination of the petitioners claim with regard to the filing of their respective returns for the assessment year 2018-19 and for condonation of delay

PADUMUNDU MILK PRODUCERS WOMEN vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

Sections 80 P, 80 AC (ii) and 143 (v) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned 17 orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to respondent No.3 for re-examination of the petitioners claim with regard to the filing of their respective returns for the assessment year 2018-19 and for condonation of delay

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

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

Sections 80 P, 80 AC (ii) and 143 (v) of the Act. Accordingly, the impugned 17 orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to respondent No.3 for re-examination of the petitioners claim with regard to the filing of their respective returns for the assessment year 2018-19 and for condonation of delay

M/S UNIQUE SHELTERS PVT LTD vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Ram Mohan Reddy

condonation of delay since the claims for deduction under Sections 80-IB(10), 80-IA arising out of Section 80AC

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 and 80

M/S HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CO. vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

In the result, the appeals are disposed of as

Bench: JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA,S.SUJATHA

Section 80-IA(4)(iv)(c) could be denied to the items of income that were derived by the business undertaking which were : 4 : inextricably linked to its business operations especially when such items of income went to reduce the element of cost of running of business? iii) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the orders

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

80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560095. … RESPONDENTS (BY MR. JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADV.,) - - - THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE 2 ORDER DATED 16.1.2018 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 119(2)(B) OF THE ACT (ANNEXURE-M) AND ALLOW THE PETITIOENR’S APPLICATION DATED

M/S. DEEPAK CABLES (INDIA) LTD vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar

Section 80-AC in W.P.Nos.46400 & 46852-853/2011 before this Court and said writ petitions came to be disposed of by this Court by order dated 31.7.2013 (Annexure-C), where under, petitioner was granted liberty to file an application before CBDT seeking 4 condonation of delay

SRI NARAYANAN KOLLAKKIL KUTTY vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, I pass the following:

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

80 FEET ROAD, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DILIP FOR SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATES) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE R1 DTD 31.05.2022 PASSED U/S 119(2)(b) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2019-20 IN FILE F.NO.711/119

MRS. PREMALATHA PAGARIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, order dated 23

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 095. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) 2 THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED:23/02/2017 PASSED IN ITA NO.1800/BANG/2016, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-2010, PRAYING TO: A) TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AS STATED ABOVE AND ANSWER

ALTIMETRIK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

The appeals are disposed of

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

80 FT ROAD, KORAMANGALA 6TH BLOCK BANGALORE-560 095. …RESPONDENTS (By Mr. K.V. ARAVIND, ADV.) Date of Judgment 13-08-2018 I.T.A.Nos.302-303/2017 & 724/2017 Altimetrik India Private Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax & Anr. 2/14 THESE I.T.As. ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT 1961, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW. ALLOW

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

80 FEET ROAD, INDIRANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 075. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R. SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) HOLD THAT THE PETITIONER HAS NOT VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 79-A AND 79-B OF THE ACT b) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE ASSISTANT

M/S. THE TOTGARS CO-OPERATIVE SALE SOCIETY vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY,VINEET KOTHARI

Delay condoned. Heard. 2. The Assessee – M/s the Totgars Co-operative Sale Society has filed these Review Petitions seeking a review of the judgment delivered by this Bench on 16/06/2017 deciding a batch of Income Tax Appeals. 3. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the Review Petitioners, Mr. A. Shankar are summarized below: (i) That for the preceding

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

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

80. Submission of return for losses.—Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, no loss which has not been determined in pursuance of a return filed [in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 139, shall be carried - 9 - forward and set off under sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub-section (2) of section