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

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

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

section 253(5) of the Act.\n6.4 The guiding principles are: (a) that lack of bonafides imputable\nto a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant\nfact; (b) that concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the\nconception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally\nunfettered 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

section 253(5) of the Act.\n6.4 The guiding principles are: (a) that lack of bonafides imputable\nto a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant\nfact; (b) that concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the\nconception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally\nunfettered free play; (c) that the conduct, behavior and attitude

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

condonation acted with reasonable diligence during the prescribed period and whether the reasons advanced demonstrate a genuine inability to file within time. Thus, the test is qualitative rather than quantitative. 132. This is not to say that the length of delay is irrelevant. A long delay naturally casts a heavier burden on the applicant to furnish cogent, Page

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

condonation acted with reasonable diligence during the prescribed period and whether the reasons advanced demonstrate a genuine inability to file within time. Thus, the test is qualitative rather than quantitative. 132. This is not to say that the length of delay is irrelevant. A long delay naturally casts a heavier burden on the applicant to furnish cogent, Page

INDIRA VELURI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

condoning such delay. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT Bangalore-3, held that the delay in filing Form 67 for the AY 2021- 22 is rejected. 12.2 We also take a note of the fact that the main reason as cited by the assessee for not filing the Form 67 on or before the due date of filing the return of income

CHOURASIAINFRATECH PVT LTD., ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2015-16

135 of 2004 dated 19.07.2004 (Kar) 22. Wherefore, the above mentioned Appellant humbly pray before your Honour to kindly take a lenient and compassionate view and condone the delay of about 461 days in filing the present appeal and the admit and hear the same on merits of the matter for the advancement of substantial cause of justice

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

delay in filing the above appeals before this\nTribunal stands condoned.\n5. The Ld.AR submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated\n11.05.2023 impugned in ITA No.1054/Bang/2023 was signed at\n17.28 hours, while the order impugned in ITA No.\n1053/Bang/2023 was signed at 17.38 hours on the same day. It\nis submitted that both the orders are identical (except

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

delay in filing the above appeals before this\nTribunal stands condoned.\n5. The Ld.AR submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated\n11.05.2023 impugned in ITA No.1054/Bang/2023 was signed at\n17.28 hours, while the order impugned in ITA No.\n1053/Bang/2023 was signed at 17.38 hours on the same day. It\nis submitted that both the orders are identical (except

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1) , BANGALORE

delay in filing the above appeals before this\nTribunal stands condoned.\n5. The Ld.AR submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated\n11.05.2023 impugned in ITA No.1054/Bang/2023 was signed at\n17.28 hours, while the order impugned in ITA No.\n1053/Bang/2023 was signed at 17.38 hours on the same day. It\nis submitted that both the orders are identical (except

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

delay in filing the above appeals before this\nTribunal stands condoned.\n5. The Ld.AR submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated\n11.05.2023 impugned in ITA No.1054/Bang/2023 was signed at\n17.28 hours, while the order impugned in ITA No.\n1053/Bang/2023 was signed at 17.38 hours on the same day. It\nis submitted that both the orders are identical (except

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

delay in filing the above appeals before this\nTribunal stands condoned.\n5. The Ld.AR submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated\n11.05.2023 impugned in ITA No.1054/Bang/2023 was signed at\n17.28 hours, while the order impugned in ITA No.\n1053/Bang/2023 was signed at 17.38 hours on the same day. It\nis submitted that both the orders are identical (except

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICE, WARD-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

delay in filing the above appeals before this\nTribunal stands condoned.\n5. The Ld.AR submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated\n11.05.2023 impugned in ITA No.1054/Bang/2023 was signed at\n17.28 hours, while the order impugned in ITA No.\n1053/Bang/2023 was signed at 17.38 hours on the same day. It\nis submitted that both the orders are identical (except

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

delay in filing the above appeals before this\nTribunal stands condoned.\n5. The Ld.AR submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated\n11.05.2023 impugned in ITA No.1054/Bang/2023 was signed at\n17.28 hours, while the order impugned in ITA No.\n1053/Bang/2023 was signed at 17.38 hours on the same day. It\nis submitted that both the orders are identical (except

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

delay in filing the above appeals before this\nTribunal stands condoned.\n5. The Ld.AR submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated\n11.05.2023 impugned in ITA No.1054/Bang/2023 was signed at\n17.28 hours, while the order impugned in ITA No.\n1053/Bang/2023 was signed at 17.38 hours on the same day. It\nis submitted that both the orders are identical (except

THE KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stands partly\nallowed as indicated herinabove

delay in filing the above appeals before this\nTribunal stands condoned.\n\n5. The Ld.AR submitted that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) dated\n11.05.2023 impugned in ITA No.1054/Bang/2023 was signed at\n17.28 hours, while the order impugned in ITA No.\n1053/Bang/2023 was signed at 17.38 hours on the same day. It\nis submitted that both the orders are identical

M/S ENVISIION NETWORK TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

delay of 135 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 6. The assessee has raised the following grounds : “ 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the assessing officer. 2. The learned ClT (A) failed to appreciate that the assessing officer erred in disallowing the claim