INSTITUTE OF NEPHROUROLOGY,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE - 01, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and restored to the file of the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

condoning the delay in filing of appeal of the Appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred by not adjudicating the grounds on merits under the facts and circumstances of the case. ITA Nos.336 & 337/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 15 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred by confirming

SUVARNA AROGYA SURAKSHA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE - 1, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

condone the delay and therefore denial of accumulation of income so far is proper. The assessee did not dispute the addition on account of depreciation

S B MANGHANANI CHARTIABLE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS,WARD-3, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

condone the delay in filing the return of income and therefore the exemption has to be denied u/s. 11(2) of the Act. The AO had disallowed the claim of depreciation

M/S HUSSAIN MULTISPECIALITY HOSPITAL,BIJAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, VIJAYAPUR, VIJAYAPUR

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

condone the delay\nand admit the appeal for adjudication.\n7.\nBrief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Partnership\nFirm and has filed its return of income for the AY 2016-17\ndeclaring total income at Rs.34,75,810/-\non 16.10.2016.\nSubsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and the\nassessment was completed

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

delay in filing the present appeal by the revenue stands condoned. Assessee’s appeal (ITA 392) 6. The Ld. AR submitted that Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require adjudication. 7. He submitted that Ground No.2 is challenging validity of assessment order as it was not served on the assessee within time limits specified in section

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

delay in filing the present appeal by the revenue stands condoned. Assessee’s appeal (ITA 392) 6. The Ld. AR submitted that Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require adjudication. 7. He submitted that Ground No.2 is challenging validity of assessment order as it was not served on the assessee within time limits specified in section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

delay in filing the present appeal by the revenue stands condoned. Assessee’s appeal (ITA 392) 6. The Ld. AR submitted that Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require adjudication. 7. He submitted that Ground No.2 is challenging validity of assessment order as it was not served on the assessee within time limits specified in section

EQUIPMENT FABRICATORS,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(2)(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The CIT(A) having rejected the appeal has confirmed the addition of Rs.19,79,062/- made by the AO towards depreciation

PARAMAHAMSA EDUCATION SOCIETY ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

depreciation of Rs. 1,74,10,471/-. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee filed the said appeal with a delay of 988 days and also filed an application to condone

PRACTO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI KESHAV DUBEY (Judicial Member)

depreciation under section 32 of the Act ought to be allowed.; and 14.2.2. Treating balance AMP expenditure of INR 31,02,747 as capital in nature even though it was incurred for the purpose of day-to-day business operations of the Appellant and is within the 20% threshold adopted by Learned AO making the said adjustment. The Learned

TOWNSHIP PROMOTERS ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE - 1(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Township Promoters, Income Tax Officer, Ground Floor, Sri Lakshmi Circle –1(2)(2), Narayana Complex, Palace Vs. Bengaluru. Road, Vasanth Nagar, Bengaluru – 577 204. Pan : Aamfm 4542 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ramakrishnan, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Gudimella Vp Pavan Kumar, Jcit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 22.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2023

condone the delay in filing this appeal and proceed to dispose off this case on merits. 4. The grounds raised read as follows: 1. The learned CIT(A)-1 is not justified in dismissing the appeal in limine without looking into the merits of the grounds of appeal filed against the impugned assessment order for the aforesaid year

RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15

depreciation as application of income, is to be allowed without any variation. Page 5 of 31 11. The learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred in holding that the accumulation u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act can be allowed if the Appellant produces evidence for having invested the said accumulation in any of the modes prescribed

CHETAN TRAVELS ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2018-19

condone the delay and decide the issue on merits. 5. On the merits of the case, it was submitted by the learned AR that the learned CIT(A) passed an ex parte order. As per the learned AR, the assessee had shown profit on the sale of assets in the profit and loss account. But the same was adjusted

PUTTEGOWDA RAVIKUMAR,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MYSORE

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

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavputtegowda Ravikumar The Income Tax Officer-1(1) 201, Belvadi Post 21/16, 'Aayakar Bhavan' Vs. Koorgahaly, Mysore 570018 Residency Road, Nazarabad Pan – Aezpr9904H Mysore 570010 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Tharun Kothari, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.10.2024 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy S., A.M. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 30.07.2024 For Ay 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Order Of The Learned Assessing Officer In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Equity & Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Appellant Denies Himself Liable To Be Assessed To A Total Income Of Rs.52,96,021/- For The Impugned Assessment Year 2018-19 On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 3. The Learned Cit(A) Ought To Have Raised A Defect For Delay In Filing The Appeal, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

depreciation schedule. 4. Aggrieved, assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). There was a delay of 760 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee did not file any petition for condonation

CHITRADURGA ZILLA REDDY JANA SANGH(R),CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 EXEMPTION, HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

condonation application vide order dated 04/01/2024. 4.2 Without prejudice, the assessee submitted that the surplus of Rs.76,29,084/- was inadvertently claimed as deduction under the amount deemed to have been applied to charitable or religious purposes in India during the previous year as per clause (2) of explanation to section 11(1) of the Act instead

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

condonation of delay is\na discretionary matter and\nthe authority's decision\ncannot be interfered with\nunless it is arbitrary or\nunreasonable.\n3\n[2023] 155\nТахтапп.Com 606\n(Delhi)\nPrincipal\nCommissioner\nof\nIncome-Tax-7\nV.\nOptimal Media\nSolutions Ltd.\nThe case law citied by the\nAssesse, The Head Note\nwhich reads below Section\n14A of the Income

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

condonation of delay is\na discretionary matter and\nthe authority's decision\ncannot be interfered with\nunless it is arbitrary or\nunreasonable.\n\nPage 35 of 74\nITA Nos.642 to 645/Bang/2024\n3\n[2023] 155\nTaxmann.Com 606\n(Delhi)\nPrincipal\nCommissioner\nof\nIncome-Tax-7\nV.\nOptimal Media\nSolutions Ltd.\nThe case law citied by the\nAssesse, The Head Note

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

condonation of delay is\na discretionary matter and\nthe authority's decision\ncannot be interfered with\nunless it is arbitrary or\nunreasonable.\nPage 38 of 74\n3\n[2023] 155\nТахтапп.Com 606\n(Delhi)\nPrincipal\nCommissioner\nof\nIncome-Tax-7\nV.\nOptimal Media\nSolutions Ltd.\nITA Nos. 642 to 645/Bang/2024\nThe case law citied by the\nAssesse, The Head