THE KARNATAKA CHEMISTS & DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION®,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

section 253(5) of the Act. 6.4 The guiding principles are: (a) that lack of bonafides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact; (b) that concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play; (c) that the conduct, behavior and attitude

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.

section 253(5) of the Act. 6.4 The guiding principles are: (a) that lack of bonafides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact; (b) that concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play; (c) that the conduct, behavior and attitude

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.

section 253(5) of the Act. 6.4 The guiding principles are: (a) that lack of bonafides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact; (b) that concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play; (c) that the conduct, behavior and attitude

SIRI SANJEEVINI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMAT,SIRWAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, RAICHUR

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

127 days. Page 10 ITA Nos. 1386 & 1387/Bang/2024 Page 11 ITA Nos. 1386 & 1387/Bang/2024 Page 12 ITA Nos. 1386 & 1387/Bang/2024 “APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED UNDER SECTION

SIRI SANJEEVINI PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMAT ,SIRWAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , RAICHUR

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

127 days. Page 10 ITA Nos. 1386 & 1387/Bang/2024 Page 11 ITA Nos. 1386 & 1387/Bang/2024 Page 12 ITA Nos. 1386 & 1387/Bang/2024 “APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED UNDER SECTION

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

THE KARNATAKA STATE REGN AND STAMPS DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS MULTI-PURPOSE CO-OP SOCIETY LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 5 of the Limitation Act is an expression of elastic import, incapable of precise definition, yet not without boundaries. Its purpose is to empower courts to advance the cause of justice by preventing genuine litigants from being shut out on account of unavoidable delays. At the same time, it is equally clear that the phrase is not a charter

SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 5 of the Limitation Act is an expression of elastic import, incapable of precise definition, yet not without boundaries. Its purpose is to empower courts to advance the cause of justice by preventing genuine litigants from being shut out on account of unavoidable delays. At the Page 4 of 19 same time, it is equally clear that the phrase

SREESHARADA CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,UDUPI vs. ITO WARD- 1&TPS , UDUPI

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 5 of the Limitation Act is an expression of elastic import, incapable of precise definition, yet not without boundaries. Its purpose is to empower courts to advance the cause of justice by preventing genuine litigants from being shut out on account of unavoidable delays. At the Page 4 of 19 same time, it is equally clear that the phrase

SRI. ANNESH,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMANGALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

Section 127 of the Act and thus the impugned Order liable to be quashed as non-est. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to Ground No. 2 to Ground No.4, the impugned additions of Rs.17,41,238/- on account of cash deposit into bank account and treating the cash

SHRI. BALAJI VIVIDODEESHAGALA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITA,HAVERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HAVERI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

condone the delay. 9. The assessee regarding the delay in filing of return submitted that it was holding 2 PAN hence there was a confusion which PAN should be used for filing the return of income. Therefore, the claim of deduction under section 80P of the Act should not be disallowed for filing of belated return of income. . Page

HINDUSTAN MARBLE & GRANITE ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyhindustan Marble & Granite Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Regd. Office: No.5, Lalbagh- Cr Building, Queens Rod Hosur Road, Wilson Garden Vs. Bengaluru 560001 Bangalore 560027 Pan – Aaafh8437Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By: Shri V. Parithivel, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.08.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M.

condoning the delay, ignoring the facts of the case and Affidavit furnished by the Appellant wherein the reason for the delay was explained. 2 Hindustan Marble & Granite 3. The learned CITA has failed to appreciate the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal which was purely due to improper serving of the penalty order in as much

MANOHARS CATERING ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Mrs. Beena Pillai & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2008-09 Manohars Catering, Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax & / Or The Partners/ Circle-1, Bangalore Legal Representatives Of (Present Jurisdiction-Income Tax The Partners Of Manohars Officer-Ward7(2)(3), Bangalore) Catering As Stipulated U/S V. 189(1), 189(3) & 189(4) Of The 1961 Act Number 666, Indiranagar 1St Stage Bengaluru-560038 Karnataka Pan:Aalfm1212B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Raghvendra, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.09.2024 O R D E R

condone the delay w.r.t. this appeal and proceed to adjudicate this appeal on merits in accordance with law. We Reference is drawn to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987 AIR 1353(SC)). 7.3 The Ld. CIT(A) passed an appellate order dated 30.01.2018 under section

SHRI D. DASAPPA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act Dt.30.12.2016 determining the total income of Rs.21,20,62,127 including Short Term Capital (STCG). Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(Appeals). We found that there is a delay of 52 days in filing the appeal before the appellate authority as mentioned in para

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. DR.RANJAN PAI, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the C

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2007-08 Dr. Ranjan Pai, The Assistant Commissioner Block No. 1B, Jakkur Of Income Tax, Plantation Village, Vs. Central Circle – 2 (2), Yelahanka Main Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 064. Pan: Agbpp2795G Appellant Respondent & C.O. No. 19/Bang/2019 (In Ita No. 891/Bang/2018) (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Revenue By : Ms. Neera Malhotra, Cit (Dr)

condonation of delay in filing of appeal and were not for delay in filing of CO. Moreover the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji& Others as reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471(SC) was not considered by tribunal in any of these orders. . 5. The ld. DR in support

THE BANGALORE CITY CO OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(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 : 2019-20 M/S. The Bangalore City Co-Operative Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Income Tax, No.3, Pampamahakavi Road, Circle – 3(1)(1), Chamarajpet, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 018. Pan : Aaaat 4831 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2023

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2019-20. 2. There is a delay of 477 days in filing this appeal. Assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay. The reasons stated for belated filing of appeal before the Tribunal are as under: Page 2 of 4 “The order

SHRI. RAHUL UDAYASHANKAR ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, WARD-2(1), BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18

127 of the Act. 8.7 Without Prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the notices issued u/s. 143[2] of the Act vide dated 09.08.2018 issued by the ITO, Ward 2[2][2] and ITO Ward 5[3][5], Bangalore are without jurisdiction for the following two reasons: i). The notice issued

MAF CLOTHING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Prakash Chand Yadav (Judicial Member)

Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in respect of Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is, a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of readymade garments and apparels, filed its return of income on 18.01.2021 declaring a nominal income of Rs.6.38

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