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.

10 of 23 other set of orders i.e. on 1.10.2023 and 6.10.2023. Being so, the explanation given by assessee is not bonafide. 6.1 The assessee herein has not made any affidavit on oath neither before us nor before NFAC to give any details. The notice of hearing has been sent by NFAC to the e-mail address of the employee

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.

10 of 23 other set of orders i.e. on 1.10.2023 and 6.10.2023. Being so, the explanation given by assessee is not bonafide. 6.1 The assessee herein has not made any affidavit on oath neither before us nor before NFAC to give any details. The notice of hearing has been sent by NFAC to the e-mail address of the employee

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.

10 of 23 other set of orders i.e. on 1.10.2023 and 6.10.2023. Being so, the explanation given by assessee is not bonafide. 6.1 The assessee herein has not made any affidavit on oath neither before us nor before NFAC to give any details. The notice of hearing has been sent by NFAC to the e-mail address of the employee

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

condone the above delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. The first ground for our consideration is with regard to the disallowance of Rs.99,02,829/-, which is claimed by assessee as an interest payment. The assessee in the year under consideration advanced a sum of Rs.41 crores towards purchase of shares. The AO questioned the sources of Rs.41

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

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

38 ITD 320 dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. The appellate order was passed on 28.2.2018. 6. Against this appellate order, the appeal was filed on 14.11.2024. Assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay in filing of appeal as under: - Page 7 of 19 Page 8 of 19 Page

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

condone the delay in filing Form 10 electronically with the department. While entertaining such application, the Commissioner is required to satisfy that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause in filing Form 9A and Form 10 within the stipulated time. But this Circular does not preclude the assessee in filing Form 10 manually before the jurisdictional AO. The assessee

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

delay of 150 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 5. After hearing both the parties, I am of the opinion that similar issue came for consideration before this Tribunal in the case of M/s. CSI Credit Co-operative Society Vs. ITO cited (supra) wherein the Tribunal has held as under:- M/s. Yaksh Pattina Souharda Sahakari

JAYANTILAL BHAGWANCHAND,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2011-12

delay, we condone the same and proceed to hear the matter on merit. 3. The effective issue raised by the assessee vide ground Nos. 2 to 9 is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of exempted capital gain under section 10(38

MR. BHASKAR JOSEPH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2)(2), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2015-16

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. Mr. Bhaskar Joseph, Bangalore Page 7 of 25 6. The main ground for consideration in this appeal is with regard to the sustaining of addition of Rs.41.35 lakhs as unexplained deposit u/s 68 of the Act. As per Ld. A.R.’s information, it is noticed by the AO that assessee deposited

M/S. KOKKARNE PRABHAKAR,HUBBALLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2), HUBBALLI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Kokkarne Prabhakara, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 103, Indira Prasta Apartment, Ward 3(2), Hubballi. Vivekanand Colony, Keshwapur, Hubli-580 023 Pan Acipp 8430H

condone the delay of three days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds: I.T.A. No. 1239/Bang/2019 3. The facts of the case CIT(A) are that for the ay 2014-15, the assessee electronically filed the return of income on 24/09/2014 declaring income of Rs.8,46,017/- u/s. 44AD

MUSTAFA KHALEEL,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

38 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal is condoned and the delay is admitted for adjudication. Mustafa Khaleel, Bangalore Page 7 of 10 4. Coming to the merit of the issue, the Ld. CIT(A) not accepted claim of the assessee by observing that the assessee has already offered capital gain arising out of compulsory acquisition of land

SAVIYNT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2021-22

section 143(1)(a) of the Act and submitted a response dated 13 November 2022 at online portal. Subsequently on receiving the notice of outstanding demand on 13 January 2023, the chartered accountant realized that the communication dated 13 November 2022 was an intimation. Within seven days of such realization, he assisted the company in filing an appeal before

BALAPPA HANAMANTAPPANANDEPPANAVAR ,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , BAGALKOT

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2009-10

38,600/- in Corporation bank savings account of the assessee. 4. The assessee preferred appeal against the above assessment order before the learned CIT – A wherein the appeal of the assessee was delayed by 208 days and the assessee did not submit request for condonation of delay along with the appeal filed but mentioned that it would be submitted

SRI. M. NAGARAJA,MYSORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1), MYSORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 1999-2000

condonation of delay of 2111 days. The entire premise of the assessee is that there is no delay in filing the present appeal as appearing from the following para which forms part of the submission filed by the Ld.AR dated 30/07/2022. “11. However, on account of monetary limits, the Department's appeal stood dismissed vide order dated

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3), BENGALURU vs. MOHAMMED FAROOQ KANANA, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2020-21 Ito, Vs. Mr. Mohammed Farooq Kanana, 6 9Th Cross, H Siddaiah Road, Ward – 7(2)(3), Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 027, Karnataka. Pan : Abvpm 1212 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Thirumala Naidu, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2025

38 days in filing this appeal considering genuine and unavoidable administrative constraints faced by the Department. Admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.” 3. Considering the reasons explained in the above petition, we noted that Revenue had sufficient cause for not filing appeal within time. Therefore, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. M/S. BANGALORE CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section, the fact remains that the petitioner has substantiated that injustice is being done by not following the Division Bench decision of this Court. Therefore, in order to do substantial justice, this Court exercising the power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can condone the delay as held by the Division Bench of this Court

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

38,45,591 | 5,86,03,541/- | 2017-18 | 153C dtd. 27.09.2021 | 1,36,81,870/- | 91,75,100 | 2,28,56,970/- | 2018-19 | 153C

M/S. PRAKAT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1) , BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condoning the delay in filing of the appeal. 4. Reliance is also placed on the following orders of ITAT, Bangalore Kooud Software Pvt. Ltd. V The Dy. Director of Income-tax, CPC - TDS, Ghaziabad - ITA No.82 to 90/Bang/2022 Nagesh Consultants Vs. DCIT CPC-TDS Circle - 2(1.), Bangalore ITA No. 32/Bang/2023 dtd: 07-03-2023 Thomas Abraham