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

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

132 of the act was carried out in case of assessee on 04.01.2018. The case was centralized and notice u/s. 153A was issued to assessee for A.Y. 2012-13 to 2017-18. In response to the notice u/s. 153A, the assessee filed return of income for the assessment years

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 does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the criterion. The criterion for condoning the delay is sufficiency of reason and not the length of the delay. 131. The decisive factor

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 does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the criterion. The criterion for condoning the delay is sufficiency of reason and not the length of the delay. 131. The decisive factor

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 42 of 115 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 42 of 115 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 42 of 115 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Murli Agro Products

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 does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter; acceptability of the explanation is the criterion. The criterion for condoning the delay is sufficiency of reason and not the length of the delay. 131. The decisive factor

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3) , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

5. The learned departmental representative vehemently objected to the same and submitted that no sufficient cause is shown and therefore the delay cannot be condoned. 6. We have Carefully considered the rival contention and find that the delay of 39 days in filing appeal by the assessee which is supported by the sufficient reason that the staff deputed

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

5. The learned departmental representative vehemently objected to the same and submitted that no sufficient cause is shown and therefore the delay cannot be condoned. 6. We have Carefully considered the rival contention and find that the delay of 39 days in filing appeal by the assessee which is supported by the sufficient reason that the staff deputed

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3) , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

5. The learned departmental representative vehemently objected to the same and submitted that no sufficient cause is shown and therefore the delay cannot be condoned. 6. We have Carefully considered the rival contention and find that the delay of 39 days in filing appeal by the assessee which is supported by the sufficient reason that the staff deputed

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BAENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

5. The learned departmental representative vehemently objected to the same and submitted that no sufficient cause is shown and therefore the delay cannot be condoned. 6. We have Carefully considered the rival contention and find that the delay of 39 days in filing appeal by the assessee which is supported by the sufficient reason that the staff deputed

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

delay, it was agreed to declare the purchases made from certain parties as its income. Meanwhile it was in the process of obtaining confirmations from suppliers. It could obtain confirmations from Mr. Abdul Rasheed and Mr. Sayyad Ebrahim. Confirmations received from parties were produced before us. Hence, the income admitted during the search proceedings in respect of said suppliers

M/S. CONCORDE HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

condone the delay for 4 days in both the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication. ITA No.532/Bang/2024 (AY 2015-16): 2. Facts of the issue in this appeal are that the appellant, engaged in real estate project development in Bangalore and affiliated with various grot+ companies and firms, was subject to a search and seizure operation under Section 132

NARAYANAPPA GOVINDARAJU,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE (1)(3) BANGALORE, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

132 and therefore assessee must have been aware of the income tax proceedings and filed appeal within time. During the appellate proceedings before the FAA the assessee could not file any cogent material to prove the ill health of the assessee. 6. Considering the rival submissions, we note that the ld. FAA has not condoned the delay of 85 days

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

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. ITA Nos.1658 to 1661/Bang/2018, ITA No.127/Bang/2020 & ITA 575/Bang/2020 M/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore & T. Nadakrishna, Bangalore Page 37 of 55 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income

M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (3) , BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. ITA Nos.1658 to 1661/Bang/2018, ITA No.127/Bang/2020 & ITA 575/Bang/2020 M/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore & T. Nadakrishna, Bangalore Page 37 of 55 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income

M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT.LTD. ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (3) , BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. ITA Nos.1658 to 1661/Bang/2018, ITA No.127/Bang/2020 & ITA 575/Bang/2020 M/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore & T. Nadakrishna, Bangalore Page 37 of 55 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income

M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 (3), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. ITA Nos.1658 to 1661/Bang/2018, ITA No.127/Bang/2020 & ITA 575/Bang/2020 M/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore & T. Nadakrishna, Bangalore Page 37 of 55 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income

M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (3) , BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

condoning the delay. Thus, the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Meeta Gutgutia has reached finality. ITA Nos.1658 to 1661/Bang/2018, ITA No.127/Bang/2020 & ITA 575/Bang/2020 M/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore & T. Nadakrishna, Bangalore Page 37 of 55 22. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in the case of Commissioner of Income