M/S. SJS ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year:2017-18

Income Tax Appeals - Delhi ["Ld. CIT(A)"] has failed to properly appreciate the facts as explained in the application for condonation of delay and therefore was unjustified in rejecting the appeal. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) was unreasonable and grossly erred by not considering the merits of the case before rejecting the appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) ought

M/S. CHITRADURGA NIRMITHI KENDRA,CHITRADURGA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), DAVANGERE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

condonation petition explaining the delay as follows:\nAppellant\nAFFIDAVIT\nRespondent\nI, Harish Kumar. B.S. S/o Sri Benakashetty Sharanappa aged about 35 years do\nhereby solemnly swear on oath and state as under:\n1. That, I am the Project Director of the appellant Society and I am duly\nauthorized by the competent authority to swear to this affidavit.\n2. That

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

addition of Rs.1,06,13,329/- (disallowance of interest at Rs.99,02,829/- and disallowance of expenses at Rs.7,10,500/-) and finally he determined the income of (+) Rs.40,120/-. Thus, assessed income in this case is only Rs.40,120/- and as such jurisdiction in this case will definitely be of SMC. It is therefore, I have to look into

BETHALA PETROPACKS PVT LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEEPAK EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD.,),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). The ld. AO has made various additions u/s 68 of the Act as the assessee has not explained the source of credit found in the books of accounts of the assessee. ITA Nos.280 to 284/Bang/2024 Bethala Petropacks Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 2 of 15 (ii) AY 2012-13: 3. In this assessment

BETHALA PETROPACKS PVT LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEEPAK EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD.,),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). The ld. AO has made various additions u/s 68 of the Act as the assessee has not explained the source of credit found in the books of accounts of the assessee. ITA Nos.280 to 284/Bang/2024 Bethala Petropacks Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 2 of 15 (ii) AY 2012-13: 3. In this assessment

BETHALA PETROPACKS PVT LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEEPAK EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD.,),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). The ld. AO has made various additions u/s 68 of the Act as the assessee has not explained the source of credit found in the books of accounts of the assessee. ITA Nos.280 to 284/Bang/2024 Bethala Petropacks Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 2 of 15 (ii) AY 2012-13: 3. In this assessment

BETHALA PETROPACKS PVT LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS DEEPAK EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD.,),BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). The ld. AO has made various additions u/s 68 of the Act as the assessee has not explained the source of credit found in the books of accounts of the assessee. ITA Nos.280 to 284/Bang/2024 Bethala Petropacks Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 2 of 15 (ii) AY 2012-13: 3. In this assessment

SHRI. NAGARAJ VINAYAK JOSHI,KARAWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are 2017-18 and 2018-19. 2. There is a delay of 312 days in filing of the appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18. Assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay and also an affidavit of the concerned Chartered Accountant stating therein the reasons for belated

SHRI. NAGARAJ VINAYAK JOSHI,KARAWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Years are 2017-18 and 2018-19. 2. There is a delay of 312 days in filing of the appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18. Assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay and also an affidavit of the concerned Chartered Accountant stating therein the reasons for belated

SHRI. MARATE VENKATESHKUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(6), HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

condoning the delay, the issue on merit of the additions is covered by the judgement of coordinate bench in the case of Bhoopalam Marketing Services Ltd. in ITA No.375/Bang/2022 dated 15.9.2022, wherein held as under: “7. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. Admittedly the assessee has deposited Rs.298,08,080/- during

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) at Rs.10,50,340/- & Rs.1,70,08,720/- respectively for these two assessment years. 1.1 There was a short delay of 4 days in filing the appeals before this Tribunal. The ld. A.R. filed a condonation petition along with an affidavit for both the assessment years praying for condonation of delay

JURIMATRIX SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed\Nand\Nshri Keshav Dubey\Nita No.92/Bang/2025\N Assessment Years:2018-19\Njurimatrix Services India Pvt. Ltd.\Ng4, Aspen Building\Nmanyata Embassy Business Park\Nhebbal\Nbangalore 560045\Npan No: Aabcj6157D\Nappellant\Nacit\Nvs. Circle 4(3)(1)\Nbangalore\Nrespondent\Nappellant By : Sri K.R. Girish, A.R.\Nrespondent By : Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R.\Ndate Of Hearing : 21.04.2025\Ndate Of Pronouncement: 15.07.2025\Norder\Nper Keshav Dubey:\Nthis Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against\Nthe Order Of The Ld. Pcit Dated 30.03.2023 Vide Din & Order No.\Nitba/Rev/F/Rev5/2022-23/1051648832(1) Passed U/S 263 Of\Nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For The Assessment\Nyear 2018-19.\N2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:\Ngeneral Grounds Of Appeal\N1.

condonation of delay\nPursuant to Ld. PCIT order, Ld. AO made a fresh assessment and passed an order\nu/s 144 r.w.s.263 of the Act dated 23 March 2024 (received on 29 March, 2024) and\nmade total addition of Rs 13,37,414 to the total income

SRI. SUHAS SURESH SHET,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-2(1), BENGALURU

In the result, these two assessee’s appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

Income Tax Act [Act] at Rs.13,19,400/- and levy of penalty u/s.271F of the Act at Rs.5,000/-. In these cases, the assessment order was passed ex-parte vide order dt.18-12-2018 latter, the penalty order also passed ex-parte u/s.271(1)(c) and u/s.271F of the Act on 18-12-2018. Consequent to this, the assessee filed appeal before

SRI. SUHAS SURESH SHET,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-2(1), BENGALURU

In the result, these two assessee’s appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

Income Tax Act [Act] at Rs.13,19,400/- and levy of penalty u/s.271F of the Act at Rs.5,000/-. In these cases, the assessment order was passed ex-parte vide order dt.18-12-2018 latter, the penalty order also passed ex-parte u/s.271(1)(c) and u/s.271F of the Act on 18-12-2018. Consequent to this, the assessee filed appeal before

SMT. GALI VANAJA,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

delay is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned CIT(A) dated, 13-03-2023 in ITA No.CIT(A)- 11/BNG/10007/2006-03 passed consequential to the order of the Tribunal in ITA Nos 1006-1008/Bang/2013 remanding the appeals back to the file of the Learned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU vs. SMT. GALI VANAJA, BELLARY

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee and the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

delay is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned CIT(A) dated, 13-03-2023 in ITA No.CIT(A)- 11/BNG/10007/2006-03 passed consequential to the order of the Tribunal in ITA Nos 1006-1008/Bang/2013 remanding the appeals back to the file of the Learned

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

income u/s. 139(4) filed on 31.03.2019. The assessment was thus completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153D of the act. 3.3 Against the additions made in the above referred assessment orders, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with delay as under: Date of Date of Date of Whether appeal AY order passed service as filing is filed with

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

income u/s. 139(4) filed on 31.03.2019. The assessment was thus completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153D of the act. 3.3 Against the additions made in the above referred assessment orders, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with delay as under: Date of Date of Date of Whether appeal AY order passed service as filing is filed with