SHREE GURU NITHYANANDA SOUHARDA 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 facts are that, petitioners’ Societies which has actively commenced only during the financial year 2017-2018 and the assessment year being 2018-19 and for the first time, they have filed returns under Section 139 (4

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 facts are that, petitioners’ Societies which has actively commenced only during the financial year 2017-2018 and the assessment year being 2018-19 and for the first time, they have filed returns under Section 139 (4

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 facts are that, petitioners’ Societies which has actively commenced only during the financial year 2017-2018 and the assessment year being 2018-19 and for the first time, they have filed returns under Section 139 (4

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 facts are that, petitioners’ Societies which has actively commenced only during the financial year 2017-2018 and the assessment year being 2018-19 and for the first time, they have filed returns under Section 139 (4

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 facts are that, petitioners’ Societies which has actively commenced only during the financial year 2017-2018 and the assessment year being 2018-19 and for the first time, they have filed returns under Section 139 (4

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 facts are that, petitioners’ Societies which has actively commenced only during the financial year 2017-2018 and the assessment year being 2018-19 and for the first time, they have filed returns under Section 139 (4

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 facts are that, petitioners’ Societies which has actively commenced only during the financial year 2017-2018 and the assessment year being 2018-19 and for the first time, they have filed returns under Section 139 (4

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 by invoking Section 119(2)(b) of the Act read with instruction No.12 of 2003 and to process the return and grant refund

COMMISSIONER OF vs. SHREE. MAHILA CREDIT

The appeal is dismissed

Bench: JAYANT PATEL,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

4. This Court had an occasion to consider the said question in ITA No.5006/2013 dated 05.02.2014 in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI BILURU GURUBASAVA PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITHA, BAGALKOT, where, after referring to the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, and the banking Regulation Act, held as under: “If a Co-operative Bank

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

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

condonation of delay in filing the returns has to be reconsidered. 4 4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned single Judge was not right in exercising discretion in favour of the respondent herein. That for the assessment year 2018-19, there was a delay in filing the returns. Therefore, the respondent could not also claim the deduction

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

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

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

condonation of delay in filing the returns has to be reconsidered. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned single Judge was not right in exercising 4 discretion in favour of the respondent herein. That for the assessment year 2018-19, there was a delay in filing the returns. Therefore, the respondent could not also claim the deduction

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

Bench: B.V.NAGARATHNA,M G UMA

condonation of delay in filing the returns has to be reconsidered. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned single Judge was not right in exercising 4 discretion in favour of the respondent herein. That for the assessment year 2018-19, there was a delay in filing the returns. Therefore, the respondent could not also claim the deduction