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(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)(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

10 of 23\nITA Nos.699 to 704/Bang/2024\nThe Karnataka Chemists & Druggists Association, Bangalore\nother set of orders i.e. on 1.10.2023 and 6.10.2023. Being so, the\nexplanation given by assessee is not bonafide.\n6.1 The assessee herein has not made any affidavit on oath neither\nbefore us nor before NFAC to give any details. The notice of hearing\nhas been sent

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

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

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

section 143(2) dt 21/9/2015 by the mail dt 24/9/2015 under e-mail id: shamala.m@incometax.gov.in to which the appellant replied on 14/10/2015 by enclosing copy of return of income filed on 28/3/2015. The issue which was applicable to assessment year 2013-14 is not applicable to Assessment year 2014-15. The appeal is decided on the grounds raised

ALA SAMUDRA MEENUGARARA PRATHAMIKA SEVA SAHAKARI SANGHA N MALPE,UDUPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, UDUPI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

108. . PAN – AABAA 4296 L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Varun Bhat, CA Revenue by : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department Date of hearing : 26.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi vide order dated

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

condone the delay in filing of the appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 and proceed to dispose off the matter on merits. 4. Common issues are raised in these appeals; hence, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. 5. The solitary issue that is raised in these appeals is whether the PCIT

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

condone the delay in filing of the appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 and proceed to dispose off the matter on merits. 4. Common issues are raised in these appeals; hence, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. 5. The solitary issue that is raised in these appeals is whether the PCIT

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

Delay condoned. 2. In all these appeals issue relates to the interpretation that is to be accorded to the provisions of Section 80HH of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Section 80HH and other related provisions, as it existed at the relevant time, are to be taken note of since we are concerned with

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

Delay condoned. 2. In all these appeals issue relates to the interpretation that is to be accorded to the provisions of Section 80HH of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Section 80HH and other related provisions, as it existed at the relevant time, are to be taken note of since we are concerned with

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

condone the delay for 4 days in both the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. ITA No.532/Bang/2024 (AY 2015-16): 2. Facts of the issue in this appeal are that the appellant, engaged in real estate project development in Bangalore and affiliated with various grot+ companies and firms, was subject to a search and seizure operation under Section

SUTHAKAR SELVARAJ ,MYSURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), MYSURU

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2017-18

delay is small, and is for bona fides reasons. Therefore same is condoned and appeal is admitted. 6. The brief fact of the case shows that assessee is an individual, who filed his return of income on 21/7/2017 at the total income of ₹ 578,420/–. The return of income was selected for scrutiny for verification of larger difference in total

SHA PRATAPCHAND PUKHARAJ AND COMPANY ,VIJAYAPUR 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.55,00,000/- during the demonetization periods in its current bank account. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee firm claimed that

VENKATA REDDY PRABHAKAR REDDY KIRAN,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Venkata Reddy Prabhakar Reddy Kiran, The Deputy No. 1142, 35Th C Cross, Commissioner Of 26Th Main, 4Th Block, Income Tax, Jayanagar, Circle – 7(1)(1), Vs. Bangalore – 560 041. Bangalore. Pan: Atjpk0894J Appellant Respondent : Ms. Aprichida .K. Marak, Assessee By Advocate : Shri Subramanian .S, Jcit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 12-12-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-12-2023 Order Per Laxmi Prasad Sahuthis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 21.08.2023 Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1055268272(1) U/S. 250 Of The Act Passed By The Nfac, Delhi On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, ("Cit(A)") , Under Section 250 Of The Act Insofar As It Is Against The Appellant, Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Natural Justice & Probabilities On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case. 2. The Authorities Below Erred In Law In Passing Order Ex Parte Without Affording Sufficient Opportunity Of Hearing

condoned the delay which arose in filing the appeal on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that there was reasonable cause for delay which arose in filing the appeal on the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The learned CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated the appeal