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

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

139(4) filed on 31.03.2019. The assessment was thus completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153D of the act. 3.3 Against the additions made in the above referred assessment orders, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with delay as under: AY Date of order passed by AO Date of service as per Form 35 Date of filing Whether appeal

KARLE INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

condoned is 139 days as for the balance 90 days from 20/03/2020 to 17/06/2020 there is no delay considering the provisions of section

EQUIPMENT FABRICATORS,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2018-19

condonation application filed by the Appellant erred in dismissing the appeal without appreciating the facts of the case. 5. The Ld CIT (A) erred in not appreciating that a lenient view ought to have been taken when major part of the delay was attributable to the Covid-19 pandemic. GROUND ON MERITS

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 that there must be a sufficient reason for condoning the delay. 139. However, while

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 that there must be a sufficient reason for condoning the delay. 139. However, while

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 that there must be a sufficient reason for condoning the delay. 139. However, while

KARNATAKA CHINMAYA SEVA TRUST,BENGALURU vs. DCIT-(EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear:2016-17

section in respect of furnishing of return of income. The assessee in the present case has filed a belated return u/s 139 (4) of the Act, which the department has also not held it to be a defective return u/s 139(9) of the Act. 9.6 Further, with regard to delay in filing the form 10B for the years prior

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

139(1) on 04.04.2014 declaring gross total income of Rs.8,83,217. A search was conducted on 09.05.2018 in the Page 2 of 7 case of T. Suresh, Bangalore in connection with search proceedings in the group case of T. Suresh and Others. Notice u/s. 153C of the Act was issued on 31.08.2021 and assessee filed return of income

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

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

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 belated return is treated as having been furnished within the due date under Section 139

M/S. YASHA PATTINA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NI,RAICHUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, , RAICHUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2019-20

delay of 150 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 5. After hearing both the parties, I am of the opinion that similar issue came for consideration before this Tribunal in the case of M/s. CSI Credit Co-operative Society Vs. ITO cited (supra) wherein the Tribunal has held as under:- M/s. Yaksh Pattina Souharda Sahakari

ARATHI VINAY PATIL ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

section 139(1) of the Act. The appellant having correctly filed the return of income within the extended due date, is entitled to deduction/s 801A of the Act and same is to be allowed to the appellant. 5. In any case and without prejudice, even assuming and without conceding that even if there is a delay in filing the audit

LORD VENKATESHWARA LADIES EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1 , BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Lord Venkateshwara Ladies Vs. Ito (Exemption), Educational & Welfare Trust, Ward –1, No.1696, Bengaluru. 5Th ‘A’ Cross, Banashankari 1St Stage, Bengaluru – 560 080. Pan : Aaatl 6403 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. V. Parithivel, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 30.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.12.2023

139(1) of the Act. The learned DR submitted that assessee has only produced the order of CIT(E) wherein delay in filing Form 10 and Form 10B was condoned. It is submitted that since delay in filing the return of income has not been condoned, CIT(A) was justified in not allowing accumulation of income under section

SHRI. BALAJI VIVIDODEESHAGALA SOUHARDA SAHAKARI SANGHA NIYAMITA,HAVERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HAVERI

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

delay of 248 days deserves to be condoned. Accordingly, we proceed to adjudicate the issue on merit of the case. 6. The issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowances of deduction under section 80P of the Act. . Page 4 of 9 7. The facts in brief are that the assessee

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

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

THE METROPOLITAN CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the ITA No

section 139(1) of the Act. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) on 12.08.2020 and Covid period was started. The assessee explained the delay for filing appeal before the CIT(A) which has been incorporated in his order at para No. 4.1 . He also observed that the as per Centralised Processing of Return Scheme,2011 the mode

GURU KRIPA RURAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATIONAL AND RESEARCH TRUST ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE EXEMPTIONS , BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

condone the delay and admit the appeals. 5. Regarding the merit, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that in the written submissions in the statement of facts (SOF) filed by the assessee before the CIT(A), it has been explained in detail as to why there was delay in filing return of income. He submitted that these contents

GURU KRIPA RURAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATIONAL AND RESEARCH TRUST ,UDUPI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE EXEMPTIONS , HUBLI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

condone the delay and admit the appeals. 5. Regarding the merit, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that in the written submissions in the statement of facts (SOF) filed by the assessee before the CIT(A), it has been explained in detail as to why there was delay in filing return of income. He submitted that these contents