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.

c) Affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant was based on hearsay and no facts were true to the knowledge of the persons who filed the affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay. It will be appropriate to refer to the findings recorded by the Ld. Tribunal in the impugned order, which reads as under

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.

c) Affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant was based on hearsay and no facts were true to the knowledge of the persons who filed the affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay. It will be appropriate to refer to the findings recorded by the Ld. Tribunal in the impugned order, which reads as under

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.

c) Affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant was based on hearsay and no facts were true to the knowledge of the persons who filed the affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay. It will be appropriate to refer to the findings recorded by the Ld. Tribunal in the impugned order, which reads as under

M/S. RMZ HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

13 of 79 (4) When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. (5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

13 of 30 ITA Nos. 418 to 429/Bang/2024 Assessment Year 2018-19 6. The Appellant wishes to submit that as per the provisions of section 246A of the Act, the Appellant/Petitioner ought to have filed the statutory appeal against the impugned order of assessment passed under section 143[3] of the Act dated 30.12.2019. As per the said provisions

R G PATIL & COMPANY,HAVERI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELAGAVI

In the result, these 2 appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, not to levy penalty and the assessing officer ought to have exercised his discretion judiciously and ought not to have imposed penalty in a mechanical manner, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Without prejudice, the authorities below failed to appreciate that the returned income was accepted and there were

M/S. SJS ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

1 . 24. Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioners strenuously argued, and rightly, that the High Court had erred in holding that delay beyond 120 days in filing an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was not condonable. 25. This Court is, however, not inclined to entertain this Special Leave Petition since

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

delayed return where claim is denied of deduction under chapter VI A of the Act and denial of deduction u/s 143 (1) (a)(ii) is general provision. Thus, specific provision of section 143 (1) (a) (v) is not invoked but a different provision of incorrect claim is invoked. h.) When a specific provision exists to address a particular type

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. S J S ENTERPRISES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years: 2018-19

13 of 16 4.9.8 In the case of T. Kishan Vs. ACIT (2012) 32 CCH 463, where in it was held as under: “There is no hard and fast rule which can be laid down in the matter of condonation of delay and Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach and discretion on the facts of each case keeping in mind

KEDAMBADI MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE WOMEN SOCIETY LIMITED,KEDAMBADI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 PUTTUR, PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

delay in furnishing returns of income claiming Section 80P deduction and condonation mechanism applies for Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2023-24 (as extended by Circular No. 14/2024). If such condonation is granted, the Page 12 of 14 belated return is treated as having been furnished within the due date under Section 139(1), thereby making the Section 80P deduction

CHIKKAMUDNOOR MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, ,CHIKKAMUDNOOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , PUTTUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2019-20

delay in furnishing returns of income claiming Section 80P deduction and condonation mechanism applies for Assessment Years 2018-19 to 2023-24 (as extended by Circular No. 14/2024). If such condonation is granted, the Page 12 of 14 belated return is treated as having been furnished within the due date under Section 139(1), thereby making the Section 80P deduction

K. P. NANJUNDI VISHWAKARMA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

13 of 30 Assessment Year 2018-19 6. The Appellant wishes to submit that as per the provisions of section 246A of the Act, the Appellant/Petitioner ought to have filed the statutory appeal against the impugned order of assessment passed under section 143[3] of the Act dated 30.12.2019. As per the said provisions of section 246A

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

SRI.INDUDHAR,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed Thus the assessee never wanted to challenge the assessment order and therefore there is no reason/cause which has prevented the assessee from filing the appeal before the CIT (Appeals). The only explanation of the assessee is that the assessee consented to the addition made in the assessment order with the condition

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

C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sri Chinnayellappa Chandrashekar No.90/10, Gangamma Temple Road W Extension, Hoskote ITO Bangalore 562 114 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

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