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

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

108 and Bhakti Mandal vs. Kagendra AIR\n1968 Cal 69; the fact that there was lawyer's wrong advice has to be\nproved by the party seeking condonation of delay. Elaborating this\nfurther, it was held in Bhakti Mandal vs. Kagendra (supra) that an\napplicant applying for condonation of delay on the ground of wrong\nadvice 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

108 and Bhakti Mandal vs. Kagendra AIR\n1968 Cal 69; the fact that there was lawyer's wrong advice has to be\nproved by the party seeking condonation of delay. Elaborating this\nfurther, it was held in Bhakti Mandal vs. Kagendra (supra) that an\napplicant applying for condonation of delay on the ground of wrong\nadvice 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

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

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

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 PKN CAPS AND POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC TDS , GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

108 ….Appellant PAN AABCP 2637E Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad-201010. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Pranav Krishna, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. CIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 26.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 20.12.2019 O R D E R PER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM : These are the appeals filed by the assessee against

M/S PKN CAPS AND POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC TDS , GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

108 ….Appellant PAN AABCP 2637E Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad-201010. ……Respondent. Assessee By: Shri Pranav Krishna, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. CIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 26.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 20.12.2019 O R D E R PER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM : These are the appeals filed by the assessee against

RAJAN SRINIVASAN HUF,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Rajan R. Srinivasan (Huf), The Deputy No. 2965, 4Th Cross, Commissioner Of Income 12Th Main, Hal Ii Stage, Vs. Tax, Indiranagar, Circle – 7 (1), Bangalore – 560 008. Bangalore. Pan: Aajhr1684Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.10.2018 O R D E R Per Shri A.K. Garodiathis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A)-Ltu, Bangalore Dated 28.07.2014 For Assessment Year 2006- 07. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under. “1. The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) In So Far As It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Law, Equity & Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

section 234B and 234D of the Act under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, delete or substitute any or all of the grounds and to file a paper book at the time of hearing the appeal. 10. In view of the above and other grounds that may be taken

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S MILLIPORE (INDIA) LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the cross objections are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raoit(Tp)A No.327/Bang/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(1)(2), Bengaluru. … Appellant Vs M/S.Millipore (India) Ltd. No.50A, 2Nd Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bengaluru-560058. … Respondent Pan:Aaccm 1226 B & Co No.188/Bang/2015 (In It(Tp)A No.327/Bang/2015) (Assessment Year: 2009-10) (By The Assessee) Revenue By : Smt. Swapna Das, Jcit Assessee By : Shri K.K. Chaythanya, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 06/12/2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/03/2017 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am :

delay is condoned. 12. Now, we proceed to dispose of the cross objections. The CIT(A) considered the apportionment of a sum of Rs.17,03,108/- by observing as under: 13. The assessee-company had placed no material before us or before the CIT(A) controverting above finding of the AO and the reasoning of the AO cannot be found

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

TOTAL TRANSPORT SYSTEMS LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, WARD- 3(3), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaran

condone the delay and admit the appeals for hearing. 4. In all these appeals, the assessee is challenging the decision of Ld CIT(A) in rejecting the appeals in limine as non-maintainable and defective. 5. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee has filed appeals before Ld CIT(A) challenging the demand raised u/s 234E

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

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