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.

1)(c) of the Act. There was a delay of 346 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows: “5………………..The appellant has stated that this inordinate delay in presenting the appeal took

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.

1)(c) of the Act. There was a delay of 346 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows: “5………………..The appellant has stated that this inordinate delay in presenting the appeal took

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.

1)(c) of the Act. There was a delay of 346 days in filing the appeal before NFAC. The assessee filed a condonation petition before NFAC explaining the reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before NFAC and the NFAC has observed as follows: “5………………..The appellant has stated that this inordinate delay in presenting the appeal took

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

11 of 79 in filing appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee supports the delay of 93 days by way of condonation petitions explaining the reason that it was due to miscommunication between Senior Managing Director Mr. Deepal Manoharlal Chhabria and Mr. V.S. Narayanan, Group Managing Director of the assessee company. Thus, the averments was supported by the affidavit by Deepak

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

11 of 30 ITA Nos. 418 to 429/Bang/2024 Assessment Year 2016-17 6. The Appellant wishes to submit that as per the provisions of section 246A of the Act, the Appellant/Petitioner ought to have filed the statutory appeal against the impugned order of assessment passed under section 143[3] of the Act dated 30.12.2019. As per the said provisions

M/S. SJS ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year:2017-18

11 of 14 bestowed with a right to the delay being condoned. We are conscious of the fact that the period of limitation should not come as a hindrance to do substantial justice between the parties. However, at the same time, a party cannot sleep over its right ignoring the statute of limitation and without giving sufficient and reasonable explanation

SRI. CHANDRAKANT SHAMAPPA KONTHA,HUBLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, HUBLI

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

11 December 2024. Thereby there is a delay of 102 days in filing of the appeal. 4. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the limitation act, 1963 stating that that the mentioning of the date of receipt of the order on 28th of June 2024 is out of the abundant caution

SRI. CHANDRAKANT SHAMAPPA KONTHA,HUBLI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1) & TPS, HUBLI

In the result both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

11 December 2024. Thereby there is a delay of 102 days in filing of the appeal. 4. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the limitation act, 1963 stating that that the mentioning of the date of receipt of the order on 28th of June 2024 is out of the abundant caution

M/S. S J S ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years: 2018-19

11 of 16 ground for condoning the delay even by imposing conditions. It is observed that each application for condonati011 of delay has to be decided within the framework laid down by this Court. It is further observed that if courts start condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out by imposing conditions then that would amount to violation

CHITRADURGA ZILLA REDDY JANA SANGH(R),CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 EXEMPTION, HUBLI

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

condonation application vide order dated 04/01/2024. 4.2 Without prejudice, the assessee submitted that the surplus of Rs.76,29,084/- was inadvertently claimed as deduction under the amount deemed to have been applied to charitable or religious purposes in India during the previous year as per clause (2) of explanation to section 11(1) of the Act instead

SHRI HINGULAMBIKA EDUCATION SOCIETY,GULBARGA vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, KALBURGI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

condonation of delay is not available under the section. In order to provide relief to such Trusts and remove hardship in genuine cases, it is proposed to amend Section 12A of the Act to provide that in a case where a Trust or Institution has been granted registration u/s. 12AA of the Act, the benefit of Sections 11

SRI SOWRABHA MAHILA PATTINA SAHAKARA SANGHA ,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TIPTUR

The appeals are dismissed, however

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2019-20

11 of 20 g.) When there is a specific clause in 143(1)(a)(v) which speaks about the delayed return where claim is denied of deduction under chapter VI A of the Act and denial of deduction u/s 143 (1) (a)(ii) is general provision. Thus, specific provision of section 143 (1) (a) (v) is not invoked

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

11 of 30 Assessment Year 2016-17 6. The Appellant wishes to submit that as per the provisions of section 246A of the Act, the Appellant/Petitioner ought to have filed the statutory appeal against the impugned order of assessment passed under section 143[3] of the Act dated 30.12.2019. As per the said provisions of section 246A

KARNATAKA CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. DCIT-(EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2016-17

1) or sub-section (4) of section 139 for the purpose of compliance of sub-section (4A) of the said section in respect of furnishing of return of income. The assessee in the present case has filed a belated return u/s 139 (4) of the Act, which the department has also not held it to be a defective return

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. MR.P N KRISHNAMURTHY , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri Chandra Poojari

condone the delay and proceed to dispose of the C.O. on merits. 6. First of all, we will take up the Cross Objection filed by the assessee, which goes to the root of the matter. C.O. No.4/Bang/2019 – by Assessee 7. The facts of the case are that the assessee has filed the return of income on 29.11.2014 for the assessment

CHIKKAMUDNOOR MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, ,CHIKKAMUDNOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

delayed return where claim is denied of deduction under chapter VI A of the Act and denial of deduction u/s 143 (1) (a)(ii) is general provision. Thus, specific provision of section 143 (1) (a) (v) is not invoked but a different provision of incorrect claim is invoked. h) When a specific provision exists to address a particular type

KEDAMBADI MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE WOMEN SOCIETY LIMITED,KEDAMBADI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PUTTUR, PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

delayed return where claim is denied of deduction under chapter VI A of the Act and denial of deduction u/s 143 (1) (a)(ii) is general provision. Thus, specific provision of section 143 (1) (a) (v) is not invoked but a different provision of incorrect claim is invoked. h) When a specific provision exists to address a particular type

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S THE KARNATAKA STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION, BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

condonation of such delay. 3. Disallowance of set apart /accumulation of income u/s 11(1)(a) i) The CIT(A) has erred in allowing exemption u/s 11(1)(a) @ 15% of the income for set apart/accumulation without considering the fact that the assessee has failed to fulfil the conditions for accumulation of 85% of income as stipulated u/s 11

SHREE SUBRAHMANYA TEMPLE ,THOKUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTIONS, WARD-2, MANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2016-17

1) of the Act. If the AO, after examining the explanation, finds the reasons to be genuine and reasonable, then following the principles laid down in Jaya Educational Trust (supra) and other binding precedents, the delay in filing of return and form 10B should be condoned. In that case, the assessee shall be eligible for exemption under section 11