INDIRA VELURI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

rectification application u/s 154 of the Act on 26.12.2022 by declaring the same total income Rs.27,48,790/- along with Form 67 for claiming foreign tax credit but the AO CPC had denied the foreign tax credit of Rs.6,62,622/- claimed. 7.1 However, aggrieved by the intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal

COREGEO TECH (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2020-21

rectification application u/s 154 and order was passed on 07.02.2022. The assesse filed first appeal on 14.06.2023 with delay. The ld. CIT(Appeals) has not decided the issue on merits of the case and only dismissed the appeal without condoning

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. SHRI MUNI REDDY SANTHOSH REDDY, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2014-15

rectification order passed u/s 154 of the Act on 11.10.2017. However, the ld. CIT(A) decided the issue cropped up in the order passed u/s 154 of the Act while adjudicating the appeal against the order passed by AO u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 14.12.2016 without calling for the remand report from the AO. Thus, he submitted that

SHRI. BASAVESWAR CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LIMITED ,HUNDUND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, , BAGALKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16

condone the delay of 2995 days in filing the appeal. The reasons for not filing appeal within time is very much casual and not explained with reasonable cause. The assessee itself accepted that even the rectification application u/s. 154

ARYA VYSYA SANGHA,CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HUBLI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

rectification u/s 154 or may appeal before the FAA. But, here the assessee filed appeal with delay which is not reasonable cause. 8. Considering the rival submissions, the ld. FAA has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not considering the reasons of the assessee for condoning

ARYA VYSYA SANGHA,CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HUBLI

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

rectification u/s 154 or may appeal before the FAA. But, here the assessee filed appeal with delay which is not reasonable cause. 8. Considering the rival submissions, the ld. FAA has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not considering the reasons of the assessee for condoning

SRI SOWRABHA MAHILA PATTINA SAHAKARA SANGHA ,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TIPTUR

The appeals are dismissed, however

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2019-20

condonation of delay in filing of the return of income, the Central Processing Centre is correct in not allowing the Assessee the deduction u/s. 80P of the Act as return of income is not filed within due date. The Ld. CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in case of AA520 Veerappampalayam Primary Agricultural Cooperative

THE PAVAGADA SOUHARDA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE LIMTIED,KOLOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KOLAR

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2010-11

delay condonation application, the assessee submitted that they have filed a rectification petition on 21/07/2011 as against the intimation dated 17/03/2011 which was not accepted by the CPC vide order dated 03/08/2011. Thereafter on 05/09/2011, a petition u/s. 154

YUVA CHINTANA FOUNDATION,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD 2, BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22

condoning the delay of 110 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit the same for adjudication. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee trust filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2021-22 on 07/02/2022 declaring net taxable income at Rs. Nil and accordingly claimed refund of Rs. 11,350/- along with

RAMPUR LAXAMANA NAIK RAVISHANKAR,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , TIPTUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Rampur Laxamana Naik Ravishankar Tulasi Nivasa 8Th Cross, Vidyanagara Tipturho, Tiptur Ito Vs. Tumkur 572 201 Ward 1 Karnataka Tiptur Pan No :Ajvpr7385P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Gokul, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Subramanian S., D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.07.2025

delay was due to wrong professional advice wherein the assessee was advised to file a rectification application u/s 154 of the Act before the AO & not to file the statutory appeal.The assessee was pursuing the remedy u/s 154 of the Act. Upon failing to secure the remedy u/s 154 of the Rampur Laxamana Naik Ravishankar, Tumkur Page

M/S. ARHAM MITRA MANDAL,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS)-WARD-1, BANGALORE

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

u/s 143(1) of the Act.”\n13. Assessee has filed three sets of Paper Books. Paper Books 2 and 3 are\ncompilations of case laws. In Paper Book-1, assessee has enclosed audited\nfinancial statement for the Assessment Year 2018-19, copy of the\nacknowledgment of the original return filed, statement of computation, copy of\nthe submissions made, copy

M/S. YASHA PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NI,RAICHUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, , RAICHUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2019-20

Rectification Order, the Assessing Officer, Centralized Processing Centre (Jurisdictional Assessing Officer — Ward 1, Raichur) passed the order u/s 154 of the Act by disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 80P of Rs.3,19,100/-, contending that the assessee was registered under the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari Act, 1997, as such assessee is not eligible to claim the deduction u/s

CHIKKAMUDNOOR MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, ,CHIKKAMUDNOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

rectification u/s 154 of the act Which was processed and rejected on 27 June 2023 denying the deduction claimed of ₹ 614,601 under section 80 P of the act. Admittedly the return is belated. The learned central processing Centre issued a communication to the assessee on 3 August 2020 wherein it stated that in schedule VI A, the deduction

KEDAMBADI MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE WOMEN SOCIETY LIMITED,KEDAMBADI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PUTTUR, PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

rectification u/s 154 of the act Which was processed and rejected on 27 June 2023 denying the deduction claimed of ₹ 614,601 under section 80 P of the act. Admittedly the return is belated. The learned central processing Centre issued a communication to the assessee on 3 August 2020 wherein it stated that in schedule VI A, the deduction

SHREE GOVERDHAN NATHJI HAVELI TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS-WARD-3 , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Shree Goverdhan The Income Tax Nathji Haveli Trust, Officer, No. 15, Nehrunagar, Exemptions, Seshadripuram, Ward – 3, Bangalore – 560 020. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aacts7617M Appellant Respondent

154. The Ld.AO however disallowed the exemption claimed u/s. 11. 2.2 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Page 4 of 10 2.3 The Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing Form 10B and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CPC. 2.4 Aggrieved by the order

VST ASSOCIATES ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(2), BENGLAURU

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit of the case. 5. Before I dwell upon the issue on merit, it is necessary to take a note about the history of the case, which goes as follows: 5.1 The assessee filed the revised return of income in ITR-4 dated 31.5.2018 declaring income on presumptive basis u/s

SALIGRAMA RAJENDRA PRASAD RASHMI,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(5), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

u/s 143(1), denied the DTAA benefit and raised the demand. 14.2 The assessee claims that the omission was inadvertent and bona fide. She promptly approached her tax consultant, who advised that rectification under section 154 would suffice, and under the bona fide belief that the rectification would be carried out, the assessee did not pursue the appeal remedy. Being

M/S. PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY ,CHIKKAMAGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMAGALUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2020-21

rectification order passed u/s. 154 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act dated 19.12.2024, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 5. The ld. CIT(A) found that there is a delay in filing of the appeal. In Form 35 assessee has stated that order u/s. 154 of the Act was passed on 19.12.2024, however appeal was filed