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

10. Considering the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cases, the plaintiff has not made out sufficient cause to condone the delay of 1172 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2019 filed seeking condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.” 3. I heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available

SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

delay condoned and appeals admitted. Page 10 of 19 12. Briefly stated the facts for assessment year 2018 – 19 shows that assessee filed its return of income at Rs. Nil on 26 September 2018. The return was picked up for limited scrutiny assessment for verification of deduction from total income under chapter VI – A. Notice under section

SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

delay condoned and appeals admitted. Page 10 of 19 12. Briefly stated the facts for assessment year 2018 – 19 shows that assessee filed its return of income at Rs. Nil on 26 September 2018. The return was picked up for limited scrutiny assessment for verification of deduction from total income under chapter VI – A. Notice under section

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

section 234B of the Act amounting to Rs.41,68,052 under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 10. In view of the above and other grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that

INSTITUTE OF NEPHROUROLOGY,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTION CIRCLE 1, UNITY BUILDING

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

section 234B of the Act amounting to Rs.41,68,052 under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 10. In view of the above and other grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that

THE KARNATAKA STATE REGN AND STAMPS DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that: (i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself; (ii) A right or the remedy that

M/S. SREE MINERALS,BELLARY vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10

section 143[3] of the Act, dated 30/12/2011 for the aforesaid assessment year 2009-10 by the learned Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Circle-1, Bellary determining the total income of our firm at Rs. 1,66,80,870/-. 4. That, my father Sri B V Sreenivasa Reddy was the Managing Partner of the firm and he was taking care

SRI. VIKRAM SHETTY,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the grounds of appeal are restored back to the ld

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

sections, thereby disputing liability for demand and penalties. 18. On 17th May 2023, the response was given for the aforesaid date stating that the Jurisdiction falls under Income Tax Officer. Ward - 2(1), International Taxation, Bangalore since the Appellant was a Non-Resident. 19. The Appellant denies the liability to pay interest u/s 234B and 234C

SHRI. BORAIAH SHIVANANJAIAH,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Boraiah Shivananjaiah, Asst.Commissioner Of K. Janatha Colony, Income Tax, Bidadi Hobli, Vs. Circle - 3(2)(1) Ramnagara Dist., Bengaluru Bengaluru Pan – Anaps2762E Appellant Respondent

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. Now we will proceed on merits of grounds raised by the assessee. The first ground is with regard to the disallowance of Employees’ Contribution to EPF beyond due date, by invoking Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. In our opinion

LORD VENKATESHWARA LADIES EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1 , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Lord Venkateshwara Ladies Vs. Ito (Exemption), Educational & Welfare Trust, Ward –1, No.1696, Bengaluru. 5Th ‘A’ Cross, Banashankari 1St Stage, Bengaluru – 560 080. Pan : Aaatl 6403 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. V. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.12.2023

10 and Form 10B, the FAA did not grant the benefit of accumulation of income under section 11(2) of the Act, since there was no evidence on record for condonation of delay in filing the return of income. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(E), assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel

SHRI. VIRUPAXAPPA SIDDAPPA UDNUR,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 234D of the Act is also bad in law as the period, rate, quantum and method of calculation adopted on which interest is levied are all not discernible and are wrong on the facts of the case. The Appellant craves leave of this Hon'ble Income Tax 6. Appellate Tribunal to add, alter, delete or substitute

NAVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST,RAICHUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

section 11(2) of the Act. 25. The ITAT Mumbai in Shree Dadar Jain Paushadhshala Trust Vs. ITO (E) vide order dated 19.08.2019 for AY 2014-15 wherein the assessee company had failed to submit form 10 before filing of return u/s 139(1) of the Act. The assessee company duly submitted manual Form 10 during the assessment proceedings

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. INFOSYS LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 16. The Ground No 1 is general in nature and does not require any adjudication. 16.1 The Ground No 2 deals with disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D. The brief facts of the case are as under- During the year, the assessee earned exempt income being interest

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

condoning such delay. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT Bangalore-3, held that the delay in filing Form 67 for the AY 2021- 22 is rejected. 12.2 We also take a note of the fact that the main reason as cited by the assessee for not filing the Form 67 on or before the due date of filing the return of income

BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2009-10 Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., Dcit, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Bmtc Complex, Circle – 11(2), K H Road, Shanti Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 027. Pan : Aaacb 4881 D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. A. Shankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 01.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.04.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’), relating to Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The impugned order of CIT(A) was received on 22/03/2013 and the appeal ought to have been preferred within 60 days of receipt of the order of the CIT(A) i.e., on or before 21.05.2013. The appeal was filed only

SRI CHANNABASAVESHWARA SWAMY RURAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,TUMKUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,(EXEMPTIONS) WARD-3, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

10 of 12 ITA Nos. 582 to 592/Bang/2023 Accordingly, the delay caused in filing all the above appeals before this Tribunal stands condoned. 25. On merits of the case, we have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. We note that CPC levied 234E interest for belated filing of the Quarterly

M/S. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, DAVANGERE

The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condone the delay in filing the appeal after relying on the above judgment. ITA Nos.882-890/Bang/2023 Page 10 of 17 19. Coming to the merit of the case, the sole issue involved in all these appeals are with regard to dismissing the appeal of the assessee by the CIT(A) for challenging the fee imposed u/s 234(E) for delay

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE,CHAMARAJNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHAMARAJNAGAR

In the result Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and stay petitions are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

26. The first contentious issue in this Appeal is whether the Ld. CIT (A) was correct in not condoning the delay of 84 days all these Appeals were disposed of dismissing them by not condoning the delay. The main reason given by the Assessee that Assessee is an Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee naturally its income is exempt u/s 10(26AAB

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE,CHAMARAJNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHAMARAJNAGAR

In the result Appeals of the Assessee are allowed and stay petitions are dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

26. The first contentious issue in this Appeal is whether the Ld. CIT (A) was correct in not condoning the delay of 84 days all these Appeals were disposed of dismissing them by not condoning the delay. The main reason given by the Assessee that Assessee is an Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee naturally its income is exempt u/s 10(26AAB