M/S. MULTI TEK INTERIOR SOLUTIONS ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4) , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2020-21

delay by way of condonation petition stating as follows: 1. “An order of assessment under section 143 [3] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 28/02/2022 for the Assessment Year 2020-21 by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle - 2[2], Bengaluru. Since the appellant is not sure about the correct date of receipt

BALAPPA HANAMANTAPPANANDEPPANAVAR ,BAGALKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , BAGALKOT

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2009-10

condonation of delay at the time of hearing. Therefore the order of the learned CIT – A not admitting the appeal of the assessee on account of delay in filing of appeal by 208 days is not justified. ii. On the merits of the case it was submitted that the only addition made by the learned assessing officer's is with

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)

131.\n17.4.\nThe Learned AO was not justified in making the\nad-hoc addition of Rs.23,60,587/-, without any evidence\nand on an erroneous presumption that there was inflation\nof Rs.25 for every lakh beedies sold by the Appellant in the\nimpugned FY 2019-20 merely based on a statement of\nunder Section 133A of one third party labelling

GOWDA SARASWATH SAMAJ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay application is dismissed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessmentyear: 2018-19

section 12A(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, this reasoning of the Ld. CIT(A) would also fail. Page 5 of 7 10. The next reasoning given by Ld. CIT(A) is that the assessee has not furnished any proof that the audit report was filed electronically. The Ld. A.R. submitted that

BABULAL ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(4), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

131 days for A.Y. 2015-16 and 10 days for A.Y. 2017-18 in filing appeals before this Tribunal as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Page 6 of 9 ITA Nos. 1306 & 1307/Bang/2024 Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 in support of his contentions. 2.5.2. We also place reliance

BABULAL ,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(4) , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

131 days for A.Y. 2015-16 and 10 days for A.Y. 2017-18 in filing appeals before this Tribunal as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Page 6 of 9 ITA Nos. 1306 & 1307/Bang/2024 Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., reported in (1987) 167 ITR 471 in support of his contentions. 2.5.2. We also place reliance

NAVODAYA EDUCATION TRUST,RAICHUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

section 154, the action of the AO in rejecting the rectification application was to be upheld. 34. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. As per CBDT Circular No.7/2018, the Commissioner could condone the delay in filing Form 10 electronically with the department. While entertaining such application, the Commissioner is required to satisfy that

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

131.\n17.4.\nThe Learned AO was not justified in making the\nad-hoc addition of Rs.23,60,587/-, without any evidence\nand on an erroneous presumption that there was inflation\nof Rs.25 for every lakh beedies sold by the Appellant in the\nimpugned FY 2019-20 merely based on a statement of\nunder Section 133A of one third party labelling

VANIGOTA SUGAR TRADING COMPANY ,VIJAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS , BIJAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. Now the brief facts of the case are that the ld. PCIT on examination of records noted that the assessee firm had deposited cash in SBNs of Rs.45,00,000/- during the demonetization periods in its current bank account. The ld. PCIT was of the opinion that when the case

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

131.\n\n17.4.\nThe Learned AO was not justified in making the\nad-hoc addition of Rs.23,60,587/-, without any evidence\nand on an erroneous presumption that there was inflation\nof Rs.25 for every lakh beedies sold by the Appellant in the\nimpugned FY 2019-20 merely based on a statement of\nunder Section 133A of one third party

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

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 12. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of processing of dry chillies and trading in chilly powder. The assessee filed return of income u/s 139(1) on 23/9/2010 declaring income of Rs.7,14,440/-. Consequent upon search and seizure action the assessee

SRI RAJAT DEB,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), WARD- 1(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 5(2) of the Act. He further submitted that there is no estoppel against law. Hence, what could not be taxed under the Income Tax Act could not be subjected to tax by the A.O. on the reasoning that the assessee has voluntarily offered the same in the Income tax return. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee

SRI RAJAT DEB,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), WARD- 1(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

section 5(2) of the Act. He further submitted that there is no estoppel against law. Hence, what could not be taxed under the Income Tax Act could not be subjected to tax by the A.O. on the reasoning that the assessee has voluntarily offered the same in the Income tax return. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee

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

SHRI. NAGARAJ VINAYAK JOSHI,KARAWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condone the delay in filing of the appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 and proceed to dispose off the matter on merits. 4. Common issues are raised in these appeals; hence, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. 5. The solitary issue that is raised in these appeals is whether the PCIT

SHRI. NAGARAJ VINAYAK JOSHI,KARAWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

condone the delay in filing of the appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 and proceed to dispose off the matter on merits. 4. Common issues are raised in these appeals; hence, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. 5. The solitary issue that is raised in these appeals is whether the PCIT

RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15

section 143(2) dt 21/9/2015 by the mail dt 24/9/2015 under e-mail id: shamala.m@incometax.gov.in to which the appellant replied on 14/10/2015 by enclosing copy of return of income filed on 28/3/2015. The issue which was applicable to assessment year 2013-14 is not applicable to Assessment year 2014-15. The appeal is decided on the grounds raised

SHRI HINGULAMBIKA EDUCATION SOCIETY,GULBARGA vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, KALBURGI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2020-21

131 ITR 597 (SC) Civil Appeal No. 412 of 1973 Date of Judgement/Order dt 04/09/1981. Here, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where the plain literal interpretation of a statutory provision produces a manifestly absurd and unjust result which could never have been intended by the Legislature, the Court may modify the language so as to achieve the obvious