THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

108 and Bhakti Mandal vs. Kagendra AIR 1968 Cal 69; the fact that there was lawyer’s wrong advice has to be proved by the party seeking condonation of delay. Elaborating this further, it was held in Bhakti Mandal vs. Kagendra (supra) that an applicant applying for condonation of delay on the ground of wrong advice given by his Counsel

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

108 and Bhakti Mandal vs. Kagendra AIR 1968 Cal 69; the fact that there was lawyer’s wrong advice has to be proved by the party seeking condonation of delay. Elaborating this further, it was held in Bhakti Mandal vs. Kagendra (supra) that an applicant applying for condonation of delay on the ground of wrong advice given by his Counsel

THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

108 and Bhakti Mandal vs. Kagendra AIR 1968 Cal 69; the fact that there was lawyer’s wrong advice has to be proved by the party seeking condonation of delay. Elaborating this further, it was held in Bhakti Mandal vs. Kagendra (supra) that an applicant applying for condonation of delay on the ground of wrong advice given by his Counsel

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

108, declined to condone the delay of four years in approaching the Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi & Ors., in Civil Appeal No.7696/2021 disposed of on 16.12.2021 relying on the judgment of the said Court in the case of Basavaraj and another vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported

M/S. VTH SOURCE COMPONENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS-3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessees is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

section 200A(1) was substituted by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 1.6.2015. The assessee contended that AO could levy fee u/s.234E of the Act while processing a return of TDS filed u/s.200(3) of the Act only by virtue of the provisions of Sec.200A(1)(c), (d) & (f) of the Act and those provisions came into force only from

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

10. Considering the rival submissions and perusing the entire material available on record and Orders of the authorities below, we note that here is delay of 167 days in filing before the CIT(A) NFAC which has not been condoned. The counsel of the Assessee submitted that the delay in filing appeal was mainly due to persistent technical difficulties faced

AUGUST JEWELLERY PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

10. Considering the rival submissions and perusing the entire material available on record and Orders of the authorities below, we note that here is delay of 167 days in filing before the CIT(A) NFAC which has not been condoned. The counsel of the Assessee submitted that the delay in filing appeal was mainly due to persistent technical difficulties faced

AUGUST JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

10. Considering the rival submissions and perusing the entire material available on record and Orders of the authorities below, we note that here is delay of 167 days in filing before the CIT(A) NFAC which has not been condoned. The counsel of the Assessee submitted that the delay in filing appeal was mainly due to persistent technical difficulties faced

PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LIMITED,CHIKMAGLUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , CHIKMAGALUR

In the result, along with ground no

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

section 143(3), my client is a agricultural cooperative society and basically from a small village and they have no knowledge of income tax filings and further process of income tax filing and society income tax consultant not guided properly and they have no knowledge of even how to open the income tax portal to check and replay, now when

VANIGOTA SUGAR TRADING COMPANY ,VIJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS , BIJAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. Now the brief facts of the case are that the ld. PCIT on examination of records noted that the assessee firm had deposited cash in SBNs of Rs.45,00,000/- during the demonetization periods in its current bank account. The ld. PCIT was of the opinion that when the case

M/S. SARVADEIVATHA EDUCATION TRUST(REGD),KODAGU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS, WARD, MYSORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year : 2022-23

108. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is satisfied that the assessee was not prevented by any reasonable cause from filing Form 10B within the stipulated time. 5. In the light of CBDT circular No. 2/2020 dated 03-01- 2020 in F.No.197/55/2018-ITA-I, the delay in filing Form

SHREE HANUMAN CREDIT SOUHARD SAHAKARI LIMITED,CHIKODI vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, HUBLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

condone the delay in filing the appeals before us and consider the appeal for adjudication. 8. Though the assessee has raised grounds both on legal issue and merits, during the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the merits of the case wherein it is contended that the AO has conducted proper enquiry before concluding

M/S. INDIANOIL SKYTAKING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 4.8 We heard Ld D.R on this issue and perused the record. The DDT is paid as per the provisions of sec.115-O, which is titled as “Tax on Distributed Profits of Domestic Companies”. The assessment order is passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, wherein the assessing officer is required to make assessment

INDIANOIL SKYTANKING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 4.8 We heard Ld D.R on this issue and perused the record. The DDT is paid as per the provisions of sec.115-O, which is titled as “Tax on Distributed Profits of Domestic Companies”. The assessment order is passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, wherein the assessing officer is required to make assessment

M/S INDIANOIL SKYTANKING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 4.8 We heard Ld D.R on this issue and perused the record. The DDT is paid as per the provisions of sec.115-O, which is titled as “Tax on Distributed Profits of Domestic Companies”. The assessment order is passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, wherein the assessing officer is required to make assessment

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

108,59,10,257/- for the assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 respectively. Apart from the same there is an addition of Rs. 2,01,556/- in the assessment year 2017-- 18 being expenditure of personal nature. 3.11 The various issues that arise in these appeals are as under - a) The assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

108,59,10,257/- for the assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 respectively. Apart from the same there is an addition of Rs. 2,01,556/- in the assessment year 2017-- 18 being expenditure of personal nature. 3.11 The various issues that arise in these appeals are as under - a) The assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

108,59,10,257/- for the assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 respectively. Apart from the same there is an addition of Rs. 2,01,556/- in the assessment year 2017-- 18 being expenditure of personal nature. 3.11 The various issues that arise in these appeals are as under - a) The assumption of jurisdiction under section 153A

UJJIVAN SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

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

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

delay in filing of Form 10-IC as per Rule 21AE of the Rules for the previous year relevant to A.Y.2020-21 is condoned in cases where the following conditions are satisfied: (i) The return of income for AY 2020-21 has been filed on or before the due date specified under section 139(1) of the Act; (ii) The assessee