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.

127, Municipal Board, Lucknow vs. Kali Krishna Narain AIR 1944 Oudh 135 and Sahai vs. Devi Chand AIR 1968 J&K. It is not as if mistake of a legal advisor, however, gross and inexcusable, will not entitle an assessee to condonation of delay in filing of appeal. The facts of the case are to be examined to ascertain

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.

127, Municipal Board, Lucknow vs. Kali Krishna Narain AIR 1944 Oudh 135 and Sahai vs. Devi Chand AIR 1968 J&K. It is not as if mistake of a legal advisor, however, gross and inexcusable, will not entitle an assessee to condonation of delay in filing of appeal. The facts of the case are to be examined to ascertain

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.

127, Municipal Board, Lucknow vs. Kali Krishna Narain AIR 1944 Oudh 135 and Sahai vs. Devi Chand AIR 1968 J&K. It is not as if mistake of a legal advisor, however, gross and inexcusable, will not entitle an assessee to condonation of delay in filing of appeal. The facts of the case are to be examined to ascertain

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

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

2 of 19 6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the affidavit as well as the application for condonation of delay filed by the assessee. In fact, the delay caused in filing of these appeals is 247 days. 7. Provision stipulates that where an appeal is not filed within the prescribed period of limitation, the same

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

2 of 19 6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the affidavit as well as the application for condonation of delay filed by the assessee. In fact, the delay caused in filing of these appeals is 247 days. 7. Provision stipulates that where an appeal is not filed within the prescribed period of limitation, the same

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 u/s. 143[2

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

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. ......................................................1.Any appeal or any application, other than an application under

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

2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. ......................................................1.Any appeal or any application, other than an application under

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

2. The brief fact of the case shows that the Appeal is time barred by 282 days because of the reason that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) passed on 05.07.2024 was received by the Assessee on 05.07.2024. But the Appeal is filed by the Assessee on 08.07.2025 and therefore the Registry issued a Defect Memo stating that

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

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

SRI K R UDAYA KUMAR,MYSORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09

section 54B of the Act, in so far as the investment made Page 5 out of sale proceeds of agricultural lands, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, delete or substitute any or all of the grounds at the time of hearing the appeal. 3. In the view

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

TATA ELXSI LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER INCOMER TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Tata Elxsi Ltd., The Deputy 126, Itpb Road, Commissioner Hoody, Of Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 048. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact7872Q Appellant Respondent

Delay condoned. 2. In all these appeals issue relates to the interpretation that is to be accorded to the provisions of Section 80HH of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Section 80HH and other related provisions, as it existed at the relevant time, are to be taken note of since we are concerned with

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

Section 282 of the 1961 Act read with first proviso to Sub-rule (2) to Rule 127 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The ld. CIT(A) has stated in its appellate order dated 30.01.2018 that notice of hearing was received back unserved, then in that situation the ld. CIT(A) had to follow the procedure for serving of notice

M/S. TATA ELXSI LIMITED., ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

Delay condoned. 2. In all these appeals issue relates to the interpretation that is to be accorded to the provisions of Section 80HH of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Section 80HH and other related provisions, as it existed at the relevant time, are to be taken note of since we are concerned with

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

2 opportunity to substantiate the case and has not argued other grounds of appeal. 3. We found that the Assessing Officer has passed assessment order under 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