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

138. When a Court of Law deals with an application to condone the delay filed Under Section 5 of the Limitation

SHRI. BORAIAH SHIVANANJAIAH,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Boraiah Shivananjaiah, Asst.Commissioner Of K. Janatha Colony, Income Tax, Bidadi Hobli, Vs. Circle - 3(2)(1) Ramnagara Dist., Bengaluru Bengaluru Pan – Anaps2762E Appellant Respondent

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. Accordingly, the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 6. Now we will proceed on merits of grounds raised by the assessee. The first ground is with regard to the disallowance of Employees’ Contribution to EPF beyond due date, by invoking Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. In our opinion

SRI. GOVINDACHARY vs. D.C.I.T,

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boaz

138 30.8.2011 2.2 Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of assessment for Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2005-06, both dt.30.8.2011, the assessee filed these appeals before the CIT (Appeals) – VI, Bangalore on 13.12.2012; belatedly by 439 days as per the time prescribed under Section 249 of the Act. The learned CIT (Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

138 days 4.1 For the delay in filing the appeals before this Tribunal, the Ld.AR has filed applications for condonation of delay with the affidavits. The affidavit filed by the assessee for all the years are identical and therefore the affidavit for condonation of delay for A.Y. 2012-13 dated 14.12.2023 in ITA No. 1052/Bang/2023 is reproduced under: Page

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

section 80AC are applicable and as the Assessee has not filed its return of income in time and further no application u/s. 119(2)(b) has been made for condonation of delay in filing of the return of income, the Central Processing Centre is correct in not allowing the Assessee the deduction u/s. 80P of the Act as return

FLOWSERVE INDIA CONTROLS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

condone the delay in filing this appeal before the Tribunal and admit the appeal for consideration and adjudication. It is ordered accordingly. O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is directed against the final order of assessment passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') vide order dt.23.9.2011

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

138 days 4.1 For the delay in filing the appeals before this Tribunal, the Ld.AR has filed applications for condonation of delay with the affidavits. The affidavit filed by the assessee for all the years are identical and therefore the affidavit for condonation of delay for A.Y. 2012-13 dated 14.12.2023 in ITA No. 1052/Bang/2023 is reproduced under: Page

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

138 days 4.1 For the delay in filing the appeals before this Tribunal, the Ld.AR has filed applications for condonation of delay with the affidavits. The affidavit filed by the assessee for all the years are identical and therefore the affidavit for condonation of delay for A.Y. 2012-13 dated 14.12.2023 in ITA No. 1052/Bang/2023 is reproduced under: Page

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

138 days 4.1 For the delay in filing the appeals before this Tribunal, the Ld.AR has filed applications for condonation of delay with the affidavits. The affidavit filed by the assessee for all the years are identical and therefore the affidavit for condonation of delay for A.Y. 2012-13 dated 14.12.2023 in ITA No. 1052/Bang/2023 is reproduced under: Page

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

138 days 4.1 For the delay in filing the appeals before this Tribunal, the Ld.AR has filed applications for condonation of delay with the affidavits. The affidavit filed by the assessee for all the years are identical and therefore the affidavit for condonation of delay for A.Y. 2012-13 dated 14.12.2023 in ITA No. 1052/Bang/2023 is reproduced under: Page

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

138 days 4.1 For the delay in filing the appeals before this Tribunal, the Ld.AR has filed applications for condonation of delay with the affidavits. The affidavit filed by the assessee for all the years are identical and therefore the affidavit for condonation of delay for A.Y. 2012-13 dated 14.12.2023 in ITA No. 1052/Bang/2023 is reproduced under: Page

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

138 days 4.1 For the delay in filing the appeals before this Tribunal, the Ld.AR has filed applications for condonation of delay with the affidavits. The affidavit filed by the assessee for all the years are identical and therefore the affidavit for condonation of delay for A.Y. 2012-13 dated 14.12.2023 in ITA No. 1052/Bang/2023 is reproduced under: Page

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

138 days 4.1 For the delay in filing the appeals before this Tribunal, the Ld.AR has filed applications for condonation of delay with the affidavits. The affidavit filed by the assessee for all the years are identical and therefore the affidavit for condonation of delay for A.Y. 2012-13 dated 14.12.2023 in ITA No. 1052/Bang/2023 is reproduced under: Page

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

138 days 4.1 For the delay in filing the appeals before this Tribunal, the Ld.AR has filed applications for condonation of delay with the affidavits. The affidavit filed by the assessee for all the years are identical and therefore the affidavit for condonation of delay for A.Y. 2012-13 dated 14.12.2023 in ITA No. 1052/Bang/2023 is reproduced under: Page

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay. 13. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the issue on merits and submitted that if the issue is adjudicated on merits, then the legal grounds will become academic. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits in the following paragraphs. Additions made towards the deposits made in the name

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BANGALORE

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay. 13. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the issue on merits and submitted that if the issue is adjudicated on merits, then the legal grounds will become academic. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits in the following paragraphs. Additions made towards the deposits made in the name

SRI. B.V. RAVIKUMAR,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay. 13. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the issue on merits and submitted that if the issue is adjudicated on merits, then the legal grounds will become academic. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits in the following paragraphs. Additions made towards the deposits made in the name

SMT. K.R. GEETHA,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(3)(1), BENGALURU

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay. 13. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR presented arguments with regard to the issue on merits and submitted that if the issue is adjudicated on merits, then the legal grounds will become academic. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the issue on merits in the following paragraphs. Additions made towards the deposits made in the name