Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others

Ganigara Rekha Venugopal, Devanahalli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2012-13 Smt. Ganigara Rekha Venugopal, Vs. Acit, 344 Ganigara Beedi, 6Th Ward, Central Circle – 6(3)(1), Devanahalli Town, Bengaluru. Devanahalli – 562 110. Pan : Aewpv 4890 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Cuddapah Ramesh, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.02.2023 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.06.2022 Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual. In The Return Of Income Filed 11.1.2012 For Ay 2011-12, The Assessee Declared Total Income Of Rs.4,66,770/- & Agricultural Income Of Rs.22,21,750 (Comprising Of Rs. 46,750/- From Lands At Devanahalli Village & Rs.21,75,000/- From Lands At Manepalli Village). In An Assessment Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act Dated 7.3.2014, The Ao Treated Agricultural Income From Devanahalli Village Of A Sum Of Rs.18,17,840/- As Unexplained & Treated The Same As Income From Other Sources. Besides The Above The Assessee Had Shown An Advance Lease Rental Received On Lease Of Agricultural Lands Of Rs.43,50,000/-. The Same Page 2 Of 6

…al defects should not stand in the way of Assessee getting substantial justice in the matter of payment of taxes.  Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST.Katiji and Others (1987) 167 ITR 471  Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others 118 ITR 507,  Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Ram Nath Sao Vs. Godardhan Sao, reported in [2002] 3 SCC page 195. 7. In so far as the merits of the appeal of the assessee is concerned, it is seen that in Assessment Year 2011-12, the assessee had shown lease advance in respect of Manepalli lands of Rs.43,50,000/-. In the order of the assessment…

The Beekeepers Co-Operative Society Ltd., Sakaleshapura vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. The Beekeepers Co-Operative Vs. Dcit, Society Ltd., Centralized Processing Centre, Post Box No.2, S. P. Road, Bengaluru. Sakaleshapura – 573 134. Pan : Aaaat 1506 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Pranav Krishna, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2023 O R D E R This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.12.2021 Of Nfac, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Khadi & Village Industries Commission, Bombay. In The Return Of Income Filed For Assessment Year 2016-17, The Assessee Claimed Exemption Under Section 10(23B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’), Of A Sum Of Rs.9,33,308/-. In An Intimation Dated 29.3.2019 Issued Under Section 143(1) Of The Act, The Said Claim Was Rejected By The Cpc. Page 2 Of 6

…am of the view that the delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned and the same is accordingly condoned:  Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST.Katiji and Others (1987) 167 ITR 471  Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others 118 ITR 507,  Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Ram Nath Sao Vs. Godardhan Sao, reported in [2002] 3 SCC page 195. 7. On merits of the appeal, I have heard the rival submissions. The first and the foremost aspect which I notice is that under section 251 of the Act, the CIT(A) does not have the power to remand a case to the AO for fresh considera…

Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belgaum vs. CIT, Bangalore

Bench: Shri.Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : N.A. Visvesvaraya Technological University, The Commissioner Of Jnana Ganga Campus, Vs. Income-Tax (Exemptions), Belagavi. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaajv 0064 F Appellant Respondent : Shri. M.V. Seshachala, Sr. Standing Assessee By Counsel & Shri Shiva Prasad Reddy, I.T.P Revenue By : Shri Dilip, Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 15.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Order Dated 28/01/2021, Passed By Hon’Ble Karnataka High Court In Ita No.825/2018. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: 2. In The First Round Of Appeal The Assessee Raised Following Grounds Before This Tribunal Against Order Passed By The Ld.Cit(E), Dated 08/12/2015: 1. The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Exemptions), Bengaluru [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(E)] Under Section 12A Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The I-T Act), To The Extent It Is Not Retrospective In Effect, Is Arbitrary, Erroneous, Unreasonable & Opposed To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & The Law.

…Income-tax reported at [2014] taxmann.com in which their Lordship has held, following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of West Bengal Infrastructure Development reported at 334 ITR 269 and Concorde of India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi 118 ITR 507 that condonation of delay should be allowed where public interest is involved. 15.Turning to the facts of the case, we find that assessee has moved an application for registration under section 12A on 25.05.1999, but this application was not disposed of by the CIT and it was kept pending and assessee was persuaded by the Revenue to file another a…

Gnana Shale Souhardha Co-Operative Limited, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-6, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

…of delay is allowed. In this context, the learned AR had relied on the following judicial pronouncements:- (i) Collector, Land Acquisition v. MST.Katiji and Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). (ii) Concord of India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Smt.Nirmala Devi & Others 118 ITR 507 (SC). (iii) Radha Krishna Rai v. Allahabad Bank & Others (2009) 9 Supreme Court Cases 733. (iv) CIT v. West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Limited (2011) 334 ITR 269 (SC). (v) CIT & Anr. v. ISRO Satellite Centre, in ITA No.532 of 2008 and other batch of appeal order dated 28.10.2011 (Karnataka) (vi) Smt.Shakuntala Hegde, Le…

Global Edge Software Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(2), Bangalroe

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

…any latches of the assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. MST.Katiji and Others reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) and also in the case of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others reported in (1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC) had held that the assessee cannot gain anything from belated filing of appeal. It was held by the Hon’ble Court that if the application for delay in filing the appeal is not allowed, the concerned appellant would be put to great hardship and irreparable injury, however, no hardship or injury would be caused to the respondent, if the applicat…

Bashir Ahmed Abdurrahman Matte, Belagavi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Belagavi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

…lowing judgment to condone the delay. ITA Nos.6 & 7/Bang/2021 Page 6 of 18 1. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji and Others (198) 167 ITR 471 2. Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Others 118 ITR 507 3. Radha Krishna Rai Vs. Allahabad Bank & Others [2009] 9 Supreme Court cases 733. 3.1 We accordingly condone the delay in filing the appeal after relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST. Katiji and Others cited Supra. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of…