BALKURU HALU UTHPADAKARA vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

9 AND: 1. Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, C.R. Building, N.G. Road, Attavara, Mangaluru – 575 001. 2. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 500. 3. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, Aayakar Bhavan, Adi – Udupi Malpe Road, Udupi – 576 103. ... Respondents (By Sri. Jeevan R Neeralgi, Advocate a/w Sri. E.I.Sanmathi, Advocate) This Writ Petition

NAVANIDHI VIVIDHODDESHA vs. PRL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

9 AND: 1. Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, C.R. Building, N.G. Road, Attavara, Mangaluru – 575 001. 2. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 500. 3. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, Aayakar Bhavan, Adi – Udupi Malpe Road, Udupi – 576 103. ... Respondents (By Sri. Jeevan R Neeralgi, Advocate a/w Sri. E.I.Sanmathi, Advocate) This Writ Petition

SHREE GURU NITHYANANDA SOUHARDA vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

9 AND: 1. Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, C.R. Building, N.G. Road, Attavara, Mangaluru – 575 001. 2. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 500. 3. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, Aayakar Bhavan, Adi – Udupi Malpe Road, Udupi – 576 103. ... Respondents (By Sri. Jeevan R Neeralgi, Advocate a/w Sri. E.I.Sanmathi, Advocate) This Writ Petition

PADUMUNDU MILK PRODUCERS WOMEN vs. PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

9 AND: 1. Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, C.R. Building, N.G. Road, Attavara, Mangaluru – 575 001. 2. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 500. 3. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, Aayakar Bhavan, Adi – Udupi Malpe Road, Udupi – 576 103. ... Respondents (By Sri. Jeevan R Neeralgi, Advocate a/w Sri. E.I.Sanmathi, Advocate) This Writ Petition

THOMBATHU MILK PRODUCERS vs. PRL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

9 AND: 1. Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, C.R. Building, N.G. Road, Attavara, Mangaluru – 575 001. 2. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 500. 3. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, Aayakar Bhavan, Adi – Udupi Malpe Road, Udupi – 576 103. ... Respondents (By Sri. Jeevan R Neeralgi, Advocate a/w Sri. E.I.Sanmathi, Advocate) This Writ Petition

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

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

9 AND: 1. Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, C.R. Building, N.G. Road, Attavara, Mangaluru – 575 001. 2. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 500. 3. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, Aayakar Bhavan, Adi – Udupi Malpe Road, Udupi – 576 103. ... Respondents (By Sri. Jeevan R Neeralgi, Advocate a/w Sri. E.I.Sanmathi, Advocate) This Writ Petition

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

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

9 AND: 1. Prl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhavan, C.R. Building, N.G. Road, Attavara, Mangaluru – 575 001. 2. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru – 560 500. 3. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2, Aayakar Bhavan, Adi – Udupi Malpe Road, Udupi – 576 103. ... Respondents (By Sri. Jeevan R Neeralgi, Advocate a/w Sri. E.I.Sanmathi, Advocate) This Writ Petition

M/S M.B. PATIL CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. vs. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND ANR

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice S.Vishwajith Shetty W.P.No.223253/2020 (Gm-Res) C/W W.P.No.223254/2020 (Gm-Res), W.P.No.223255/2020 (Gm-Res), W.P.No.223256/2020 (Gm-Res) Between: M/S. M.B.Patil Constructions Ltd., Having Corporate Office At 2Nd Floor, Commercial Building No.1, Opp. Income Tax Building, Shankarsheth Road, Swaragate, Pune - 411 042, Maharashtra State. Rep. By Sri M.S.Mallikarjuna By His Gpa Holder, Sri Dhanaji Venkatrao Patil, Aged About 43 Years, Occ: Business, R/O Plot No.10, Konark Aditya Block, Golibar Maidan Chowk, Camp Pune - 411 001. …Petitioner

Section 33 of the Act of 1996 is required to be taken into consideration, and in addition to the 9 same, the Commercial Court has power to condone the delay

DR(SMT) SUJATHA RAMESH vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

Section 54EC of the Act, cannot be liberally construed, and where belatedly the said eligible investment was made with a delay of six months, the Date of Order 24-10-2017 W.P.No.54672/2015 Dr.(Smt.)Sujatha Ramesh Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and another. 16/25 reasons assigned by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in the impugned order

SRI. DEVENDRA PAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav Writ Petition No. 52305/2018 (T-It) Between: Sri. Devendra Pai S/O. Late Narasimha Pai No. 1012, "Udaya", 2Nd Cross, Vivekananda Circle, Mysore - 23. … Petitioner (By Sri. S. Shankar, Senior Advocate As Amicus Curiae Sri. S. Parthasarathi, Advocate) And: 1. The Assistant Commissioner Of

Section 119(2)(b) has been rejected on the ground that the same was filed beyond the period of 6 years, while 9 observing that the Circular 9/2015 dated 09.06.2015 does not permit condoning the delay

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

9 to constitute sufficient cause to condone the delay and therefore, its rejection is perverse. 13. It is the case of the petitioner that the sale of agricultural produce of its members is the only source of income, entitled to a deduction under Section

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 IN FILING REFUND CLAIM AND CLAIM OF CARRY Date of order 24.10.2017 W.P.No.28376/2017 M/s. Sharavathy Conductors Private Limited vs. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. 7/13 FORWARD LOSSES UNDER SECTION 119(2)(B) CIRCULAR 9/2015 [F.NO.312/22/2015-OT], DATED 9

M/S N.M.D.C vs. THE AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULING

Bench: R-1.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act should have been filed not beyond 60 days, as there is a bar to condone the delay beyond 60 days and no such appeal was maintainable. He has further argued that the petitioner has certainly filed an 9

KAMALSAB S/O. DAWOODSAB SAVANUR vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar Writ Petition No. 79811 Of 2013(Lr) Between Sri. Kamalsab S/O. Dawoodsab Savanur Age: 51 Years, Occ: Agriculture R/O. Kotigeri Oni, Hangal, Dist:Haveri. ... Petitioner (By Sri. D L Ladkhan, Advocate) & 1. The State Of Karnataka R/By Secretary Department Of Revenue M.S. Building, Bengaluru 2. The Land Tribunal, Hangal R/By Its Secretary Tq:Hangal, Dist: Haveri 3. Sri. Ramachandra Hemajippa Sugandhi Since Deceased By His Lrs 3A. Smt. Sunanda W/O. Krishna Sugandhi Age: Major, Occ: Household Work R/O. Bazar Galli, Near Chavadi Hangal, Dist: Haveri

9 : raised as a defence and if it is found on facts and circumstances of each case, then such delay is not to be condoned or the defence of delay is to be accepted. The relief under Article 226 should be refused in the following cases. i) MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. BALWANT REGULAR MOTOR SERVICE, AMRAVATI AND OTHERS

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SHARAVATHY CONDUCTORS (P) LTD.,

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 264 of the Act. The delay caused in filing the revision against the order dated 27.11.1998 was of 5 years 4 months and 6 days. The Commissioner considered the 5 revision as well as the application for condonation of delay on merits and dismissed the revision petition filed by the assessee (against the order dated 27.11.1998) vide order dated

ERAPPA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice M.G.S. Kamal Writ Petition No. 9257 Of 2014 (Sc/St) Between:

Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 before the Assistant Commissioner, Tarikere, in which he had specifically pleaded that the land in question was originally granted to his grandfather one Sri.Bheemabhovi, S/o Dasabhovi. That said Bheemabhovi along with his two sons namely Erappa @ Erabhovi, Dasappa @ Dasabhovi, the father and uncle respectively of the original petitioner jointly had executed

M/S ASCENDAS SERVICE (INDIA) PVT LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX

In the result, I pass the following:-

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

condoning the delay and relating back the same to 8 10.06.2020, the subsequent recovery made by the respondents on 11.01.2021 is clearly contrary to the provisions of Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and as such, the impugned order passed by the respondents declining to refund the amount recovered

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

9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Section 119(2)(b) of the Act empowers the Board to condone the delay