M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the four A

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)

condonation of delay\nin filing a revised return\nof\nincome\nfor\nthe\n Assessment Year 1997-98\nunder Section 119(2

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

condonation of delay\nin filing a revised return\nof\nincome\nfor\nthe\n Assessment Year 1997-98\nunder Section 119(2

M/S. BHARAT BEEDI WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, MANGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

condonation of delay\nin filing a revised return\nincome\nfor\nthe\n Assessment Year 1997-98\nunder Section 119(2

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

section 142[1], either the Assessing Officer or the Prescribed Income- tax Authority, as the case may be, if, it is considered necessary or expedient to ensure that an assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not underpaid tax in any manner, shall serve on the assessee a notice for attendance or production

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

M/S. MFAR HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA, 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

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

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

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

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. ARAVINDAN VEDHAVATHTHIYAR SINGARACHARI ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

119(SC).\niii) Learned AR has relied upon various decisions to buttress his\narguments which are discussed in this order in subsequent Para(s).\n8. The learned DR, appearing virtually, vehemently contented that since\nassessee has not filed ROI in response to the notice of 148 of the Act within the\ntime prescribed in notice issued under section

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

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

119(2) (b) of the Act. On 23.7.2024 this application was rejected as the delay exceeded 6 years. The reason for rejection of the application was revision of return of income where the assessee sought rectification of the mistake in appellate order. Thereafter on 14.11.2024, the assessee engaged another AR, who advised him to file an appeal before the ITAT

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

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

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. 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