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

condoned the delay by exercising the powers conferred under section 249(3) of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. c. The learned CIT(A) should have provided another opportunity of hearing in the interest of natural justice before dismissing the appeal, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Grounds on merits of the matter

MADAPURA vs. SBN,KODAGUVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, MADIKERI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condone the delay by exercising powers under section 249(3) of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Grounds on disallowance of 8oP deduction, Rs.3i,66,632/-: a. The authorities below have erred in denying the deduction claimed under section 8oP of the Act though the appellant is lawfully eligible, on the facts and circumstances

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 AUTOLIV INDIA PRIAVTE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal numbered as ITA 593/B/2018 is treated as allowed and other appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

114. PAN – AADCA 6222 E, APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri S Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue by : Smt. Sowmya Aacharya, Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 28.01.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 04.02.2020 O R D E R Per B.R Baskaran, Accountant Member Both the appeals filed by the assessee are related to the assessment year 2007-08 and are directed against the orders passed

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

condone the delay caused in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) by following the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471. Page 7 of 9 8. On merits, we note that there are ample decisions of this Tribunal, wherein it is observed

SRI ANJANEYA VIVIDODDESHA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMITA,HARIHARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DAVANAGERE

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

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

condone the delay in filing the present appeal for the reasons mentioned in the affidavit. 5. Now we decided the appeal on merits. 6. Facts leading to the filing of present appeal are, the assessee, a Credit Co-operative society, registered under the Karnataka Souharda Co- operative Act, derives income from banking activities. It has claimed . Page

SRI. CHINNAYELLAPPA CHANDRASHEKAR, ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

114 Vs. Ward-4(2)(4) Karnataka Bangalore PAN NO : ACOPC7205K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, A.R. Respondent by : Shri V. Parithivel, D.R. Date of Hearing : 27.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 29.11.2024 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order

ADITI EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD - 1, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

condonation being granted after verification of other statutory conditions. The Appeal of the Assessee was partly allowed. ITA No.2491 & 2492 /Bang/2025 Aditi educational Trust Vs. The Income tax Officer (Exemption) ward -1 Bangalore Page 3 of 9 7. Assessee aggrieved with the same has preferred this appeal. The Ld. Authorised Representative Ms. Smrithi Athreya submitted that Assessee has wrongly filed

ADITI EDUCATIONAL TRUST,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD - 1, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sounadararajan K.

condonation being granted after verification of other statutory conditions. The Appeal of the Assessee was partly allowed. ITA No.2491 & 2492 /Bang/2025 Aditi educational Trust Vs. The Income tax Officer (Exemption) ward -1 Bangalore Page 3 of 9 7. Assessee aggrieved with the same has preferred this appeal. The Ld. Authorised Representative Ms. Smrithi Athreya submitted that Assessee has wrongly filed

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

114/- [Rs. 2,89,27,884/- and Rs. 1,67,72,230/-] are out of the previous withdrawals which were re- deposited into the bank account and the entire deposits were out of explainable sources and consequently the addition made on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Act requires to be deleted on the facts and circumstances

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

114/- [Rs. 2,89,27,884/- and Rs. 1,67,72,230/-] are out of the previous withdrawals which were re- deposited into the bank account and the entire deposits were out of explainable sources and consequently the addition made on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Act requires to be deleted on the facts and circumstances

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

114/- [Rs. 2,89,27,884/- and Rs. 1,67,72,230/-] are out of the previous withdrawals which were re- deposited into the bank account and the entire deposits were out of explainable sources and consequently the addition made on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Act requires to be deleted on the facts and circumstances

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

114/- [Rs. 2,89,27,884/- and Rs. 1,67,72,230/-] are out of the previous withdrawals which were re- deposited into the bank account and the entire deposits were out of explainable sources and consequently the addition made on account of unexplained money under section 69A of the Act requires to be deleted on the facts and circumstances

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA ,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within

GOPAL KRISHNA KARODI SABBANA,DAKSHINA KANNADA vs. DY./ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2,, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all these AY are allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

condone the delay and admit all these appeals for adjudication. 7. Now the brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income mainly from PWD contract works. The AO observed that the assessee had neither filed his return of income nor furnished the audit report as required under the provisions of the Act within