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

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

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

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

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

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

PADUMUNDU MILK PRODUCERS WOMEN 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

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

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

5 Direct Taxes (CBDT) which has the jurisdiction to extend the benefit of condonation of delay since the claims for deduction under Sections 80

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

5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that firstly, the 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

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

condonation of delay, without considering the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court? : 5 : ii) Whether the order of the Tribunal can be held to be good in law, when it dismissed the appeal of the appellant solely on the ground of limitation without examining the merits of the appeal especially against the background that the subject-amounts involved

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

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

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. 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 and observing that Board would pass orders within outer limit of five(5

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

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

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

The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

condonation of delay in filing the loss return. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed by the assessee before the Tribunal which - 6 - came to be dismissed. Hence, the assessee has preferred this appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/assessee submitted that the denial of set-off of carry forward of loss relying on Section

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