M/S. MFAR HOLDINGS PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

119 Taxman. Com ITA Nos.1670&2089/Bang/2024 M/s. MFAR Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 12 of 18 383(SC) has affirmed the view of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, wherein the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court could not condone the delay, for the want of medical records and has observed as under: - “The main excuse of delay in filing

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

Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence

SHREE REVANASIDDESHWARA PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT RAMPUR ,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, BAGALKOT

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2019-20

condone the delay in filing the return of income, thereby allowing the benefit of deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Accordingly, the learned AR submitted that the assessee, vide letter dated 07/10/2024, had filed a petition under section 119

SUVARNA AROGYA SURAKSHA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, EXEMPTIONS CIRCLE - 1, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

delay caused in filing of appeal for 145 days is for sufficient cause and the same is condoned, admitting the appeal of the assessee. Page 4 of 9 7. The assessee has raised grounds of appeal wherein the only grievance is denial of claim of accumulation of income u/s. 11(2) of the Act of Rs.70

INDIRA VELURI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

119(2)(b) of the Act by observing that there is no mention of condonation of delay in filing Form 67 in CBDT circular no.9/2015 and no other similar circular has been issued by the Board for condoning such delay. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT Bangalore-3, held that the delay in filing Form

M/S. MULKI SUNDAR RAM SHETTY NAGAR AYYAPPA SWAMY TEMPLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS, WARD-2, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Assessment Year: 2017-18

condoning the delay in filing Form No. I OB and in exercise of the powers conferred under section 119(2) of the Act, the Central

SHREE CHANNAMALESHWARA CREDIT C-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,,KALABURAGI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, GULBARGA

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 119(2)(b) of the Act for condonation of delay in filing the return of income and the same

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

SHRI GANGAPARAMESHWARI URABAN CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD MUDALGI,MUDALGI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GOKAK

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 119(2)(b) of the Act for condonation of delay in filing the return of income and the same

SREE JESHTA LAXMI WELFARE AND CHARITABLE TRUST ,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2026-27 M/S. Sree Jeshta Laxmi Welfare & Vs. Cit (Exemptions), Charitable Trust, Unity Building Annexe, No.50, Karnataka Layout, Mission Road, 2Nd Cross, Basaveshwara Nagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 079. Pan : Aakts 9479 B Appellant Respondent

condonation of delay before the Principal CIT under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. Even otherwise, he submitted that

M/S. MASTERKEY HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condone the delay in filing Form 10-IC((iii) under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the Orders

M/S. MASTERKEY HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condone the delay in filing Form 10-IC((iii) under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the Orders

SRI PRAJA CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2020-21 M/S. Sri Praja Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Vs. Ito, No.1, 3Rd Main Road, Nagappa Block, Ward – 2(2)(1), Sriramapura, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 021. Pan : Aaajs 1557 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Srinivas Bharath, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Addl. Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.03.2024

section 119(2)(b) of the Act for condonation of delay in filing the return of income and the same

S B MANGHANANI CHARTIABLE,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS,WARD-3, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

section 11(6) of the Act. 3. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee had also relied on the CBDT Circulars and submitted that the second application to condone the said delay in filing the form 9A is pending before the Ld.CIT(E) and prayed to defer the appeal till Page

M/S. CANDOR BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1),, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2013-14

119 of the Act, the Appellant reviewed the whole matter, once again, and decided to come up before this Honorable Court, in appeal, without delaying further. 18. The appellant did not have any other mala fide intention in delaying the appeal. 19. The issue involved in the appeal is of very high importance, "whether an income can be taxed twice

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

119(2)(b) to provide a mechanism for condonation of delay. Circular No. 13/2023 and Circular No. 14/2024 where in these circulars authorize Chief Commissioners of Income-tax (CCsIT)/Directors General of Income-tax (DGsIT) to admit and Page 17 of 20 decide applications for condonation of delay in furnishing returns of income claiming Section

AMITH SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accoutant Member Assessmentyear:2008-09

section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) for condonation of delay in filing the return

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

condonation of delay in filing form 10B for A.Y. 2018-19 or any subsequent years, wherein there is a delay of upto 365 days and to decide on merits. 5.1. It is submitted by the Ld.AR that these circulars were not considered either by the authority under the provisions of section 119