AUGUST JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE 1(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appellant has acted with reasonable diligence and good faith. Therefore, a liberal and justice-oriented approach mandates that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned and the appeal admitted for adjudication on merits.” 11. Considering the above submissions wherein the assessee has explained the reason for condoning the delay of 167 days

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. CANARA BANK, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

112, J C Road, Vs. of Income Tax, Bangalore – 560 002. Circle – 2(1)(1), PAN : AAACC6106G Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Shri Ananthan S & Appellant by : Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Advocates Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR & Assessment Year : 2019 – 2020 (By Revenue) Date of hearing : 16.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 22.12.2023 O R D E R PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

112, J C Road, Vs. of Income Tax, Bangalore – 560 002. Circle – 2(1)(1), PAN : AAACC6106G Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Shri Ananthan S & Appellant by : Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Advocates Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR & Assessment Year : 2019 – 2020 (By Revenue) Date of hearing : 16.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 22.12.2023 O R D E R PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

M/S. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

112, J C Road, Vs. of Income Tax, Bangalore – 560 002. Circle – 2(1)(1), PAN : AAACC6106G Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Shri Ananthan S & Appellant by : Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, Advocates Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR & Assessment Year : 2019 – 2020 (By Revenue) Date of hearing : 16.11.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 22.12.2023 O R D E R PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

M/S. ARJUNA SOUHARDHA PATHINA SAHAKARI NIYAMITHA ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3) , BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

112 days as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 in support of his contentions. 3.2. We place reliance on following observations by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 wherein

RAMESH KUMAR KOTHARI ,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS , HASSAN

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A) & That The Order Passed By The Ld.Cit(A) Is An Ex-Parte Order. 2.1. It Is Also Submitted By The Ld.Ar That, The Present Appeal Filed Before This Tribunal Is With A Delay Of 54 Days & That The Assessee Has Furnished The Application For Condonation Of Delay Vide Its Affidavit Dated 17/06/2024. It Is Submitted In The Affidavit That Though The Assessee Received The Impugned Order By The Nfac On 26.02.2024 Through Online Portal, As The Assessee Was Otherwise Also In Appeal Before The Ld.Cit(A) For Other

112 days as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 in support of his contentions. 3.2. We place reliance on following observations by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 wherein

M/S. ARJUNA SOUHARDHA PATHINA SAHAKARI NIYAMITHA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

Bench: The Ld.Cit(A) Which Was Not Condoned. The Reason That Caused The Delay Is Reproduced In The Impugned Order At Page 3. It Is Submitted By The Ld.Ar That The Assessee Was Advised By The Erstwhile Authorised Representative To Pay The Demand & That There Was No Redressal Mechanism Available Against Such Assessment Order. It Is Stated Therein That The Assessee Thereafter Approached Another Tax Consultant Who Advised The Assessee To File Appeal, That Causing The Delay. The Ld.Ar Submitted That, The Assessee Diligently Filed The Appeal Immediately Upon Receipt Of The Advise From Another Consultant & There Is No Malafide Intention On Behalf Of The Assessee, Though Belatedly. He Thus Prayed For The Remission Of The Issues To Be Considered On Merits. 2.1. The Ld.Dr Though Objected Could Not Controvert That The Delay In Filing The Appeals Before The Ld.Cit(A) Could Not Be Attributable To The Assessee. We Have Perused The Submissions Advanced By Both Sides In The Light Of Records Placed Before Us. 3. From The Submissions Of Assessee Reproduced In The Impugned Order, There Does Not Arise Any Malafide Intention On Behalf Of Assessee For Not Filing The Present Appeals Before The Ld.Cit(A) In The Period Of Limitation. Page 3 Of 6

112 days as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 in support of his contentions. 3.2. We place reliance on following observations by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 wherein

THIMMIAH NARAYANAPPA MURALIDHAR ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, , SHIVAMOGGA

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 Shri. Thimmiah Narayanappa Muralidhar, Vs. Ito, No.5, Karidevaraker I Cross, Gandhibazaar, Ward – 3, Shimoge – 577 202. Shivamogga. Pan : Bqkpm 0728 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri. Ravishankar & Monish Sowkar, Advocates. Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2024

section 143(3) of the Act, assessee preferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA). Before the FAA, there was delay in filing this appeal. Assessee had filed an application for condonation of delay which reads as follows: “The order was served on the appellant on 10.12.2019. The Income Tax Laws (ITL) require the appeal documents to be filed before

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 :

112 days in filing of cross objections. The assessee had filed condonation petition praying for condonation of delay on the ground that the delay has occurred because of re-structure in the organization and the key personnel and employees looking after tax matters left the organization, there was no deliberate intention on the part of the assessee. Thus

ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

delay not being inordinate, the same is condoned. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as follows: 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) in so far as it pertains to the following grounds of appeal is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that data automation expenses

M/S. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

delay not being inordinate, the same is condoned. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as follows: 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) in so far as it pertains to the following grounds of appeal is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that data automation expenses

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE vs. M/S. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

delay not being inordinate, the same is condoned. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as follows: 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) in so far as it pertains to the following grounds of appeal is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that data automation expenses

M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

delay not being inordinate, the same is condoned. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as follows: 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) in so far as it pertains to the following grounds of appeal is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that data automation expenses

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE vs. M/S. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

delay not being inordinate, the same is condoned. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as follows: 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) in so far as it pertains to the following grounds of appeal is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that data automation expenses

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(LTU), BANGALORE vs. M/S. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS(INDIA) PVT. LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

delay not being inordinate, the same is condoned. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as follows: 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) in so far as it pertains to the following grounds of appeal is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that data automation expenses

M/S. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year Acit (Ltu)

delay not being inordinate, the same is condoned. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as follows: 1. The order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) in so far as it pertains to the following grounds of appeal is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that data automation expenses

M/S. SANDISK INDIA DEVICE DESIGN CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2023-24

condone the delay in filing the ITR for 44 days in order to allow the concessional rate as per the Form no.10IC submitted by the assessee. Further, ld. D.R. submitted that as the ITR for assessment year 2020-21 was filed on 31.3.2021, whereas the due date for filing the ITR was 15.2.2021, therefore, as per sub-section

SRI. SRUSTI ASSCIATES ,BELLARY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, BELLARY

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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2018-19

section 115BBE for tax purpose. Accordingly assessment order was passed on 27.3.2023. 3. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) with a delay of 68 days. The assessee in Form 35 has explained reasons for the delay stating that assessment order is passed on 27.03.2023 hence appeal should have been filed within