NAVANIDHI VIVIDHODDESHA vs. PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

condonation of delay in filing their respective returns before the authority to claim deduction under Section 80P of the Act or not? 8. Undisputed

SASTHAVU HALU UTHPADAKARA MAHILA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

condonation of delay in filing their respective returns before the authority to claim deduction under Section 80P of the Act or not? 8. Undisputed

BALKURU HALU UTHPADAKARA vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

condonation of delay in filing their respective returns before the authority to claim deduction under Section 80P of the Act or not? 8. Undisputed

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

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

condonation of delay in filing their respective returns before the authority to claim deduction under Section 80P of the Act or not? 8. Undisputed

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

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

condonation of delay in filing their respective returns before the authority to claim deduction under Section 80P of the Act or not? 8. Undisputed

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

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

condonation of delay in filing their respective returns before the authority to claim deduction under Section 80P of the Act or not? 8. Undisputed

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

80P (2)(iii), of its entire income from out of the sale of the agricultural produce, filed the return under Section 139 of the Act on 23.11.2004 along with an application to condone the delay

COMMISSIONER OF vs. SHREE. MAHILA CREDIT

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 80P(i) to the society.” Therefore, the said issue was held in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 5. The said judgment answers the issue in this case also. Accordingly, we pass the following order. The appeal is dismissed. The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue

PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. SASTHAVU HALU UTHPADAKARA MAHILA

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

80P of the Act. Appellant No.1 herein has rightly rejected the application filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, but the learned single Judge has set aside the said order and has remanded the matter to respondent No.3 for re-examination of the said application pertaining to condonation of delay

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

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

80P of the Act. Appellant No.1 herein has rightly rejected the application filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, but the learned single Judge has set aside the said order and has remanded the matter to respondent No.3 for re-examination of the said application pertaining to condonation of delay

PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. BALKURU HALU UTHPAADAKARA

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

80P of the Act. Appellant No.1 herein has rightly rejected the application filed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, but the learned single Judge has set aside the said order and has remanded the matter to respondent No.3 for re-examination of the said application pertaining to condonation of delay

PRL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KERADI MILK PRODUCERS' WOMEN

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

80P of the Act. Appellant No.1 herein has rightly rejected the application filed under - 4 - Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, but the learned single Judge has set aside the said order and has remanded the matter to respondent No.3 for re-examination of the said application pertaining to condonation of delay

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.NAVANIDHI VIVIDHODDESHA

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

80P of the Act. Appellant No.1 herein has rightly rejected the application filed under - 4 - Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, but the learned single Judge has set aside the said order and has remanded the matter to respondent No.3 for re-examination of the said application pertaining to condonation of delay