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 3

ROOMAN TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)& TDS, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

delay in filing the appeal which is as under: 3. On going through the above condonation petition that the assessee had reasonable cause for not to file appeal within the speicified date and the reasons have been explained. Therefore, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji

ROOMAN TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

delay in filing the appeal which is as under: 3. On going through the above condonation petition that the assessee had reasonable cause for not to file appeal within the speicified date and the reasons have been explained. Therefore, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji

ROOMAN TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

delay in filing the appeal which is as under: 3. On going through the above condonation petition that the assessee had reasonable cause for not to file appeal within the speicified date and the reasons have been explained. Therefore, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji

ROOMAN TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD., ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

delay in filing the appeal which is as under: 3. On going through the above condonation petition that the assessee had reasonable cause for not to file appeal within the speicified date and the reasons have been explained. Therefore, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Katiji

KOOUD SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

condoned in filing these appeals and the appeals are deemed to be filed in time for further adjudication. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company. The DCIT, CPC, Bangalore (AO) has passed the orders u/s 200A(1) the Act levying late fee towards the delay in filing the TDS returns

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

3) ‘Every day’s delay must be explained’ does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour’s delay, every second’s delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner. (4) When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves

SHRI. G K RAVI,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

139(1)\n\n4.2 Upon careful consideration of the case details and the appellant's\nsubmissions during the assessment proceedings, the AO proceeded to make\nseveral additions to the assessment order. These additions, pertinent to the\nrelevant AYs, were based on various issues that led to the filing of appeals by the\nAppellant. The AO thereby determined the assessed income

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

3 of the Limitation Act; ( v ) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence; (vi) Merely

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

3 of the Limitation Act; ( v ) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence; (vi) Merely

M/S. ARHAM MITRA MANDAL,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS)-WARD-1, BANGALORE

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

3 SCC 151, it was stated by\nthe Supreme Court thus: \"The binding effect of a decision of this Court (as\nindeed any superior court) does not depend upon whether a particular\nargument was considered or not, provided the point with the reference to\nwhich the argument is advanced subsequently was actually decided in the\nearlier decision”. The more

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

3) 'Every day's delay must be explained' does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, commonsense and pragmatic manner. (4) When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

139(1)\n4.2\nUpon careful consideration of the case details and the appellant's\nsubmissions during the assessment proceedings, the AO proceeded to make\nseveral additions to the assessment order. These additions, pertinent to the\nrelevant AYs, were based on various issues that led to the filing of appeals by the\nAppellant. The AO thereby determined the assessed income

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

sections": [ "127", "153C", "143(2)", "143(3)", "139(1)", "139(4)", "249(3)", "249(2)" ], "issues": "Whether the delay in filing the appeals was caused by sufficient reason and whether it should be condoned

SHRI. G K RAVI,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

sections": [ "143(2)", "143(3)", "153C", "127", "139(1)", "249(3)", "249(2)" ], "issues": "The primary issue was whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was condonable

SHRI. G K RAVI,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4) , BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

condonation of delay petitions for the belatedly filed appeals, taking into account the medical evidence now produced.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "127", "153C", "143(3)", "139

GOTTIGERE KRISHNAPPA RAVI,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical\npurposes

139(1)\n\nPage 5 of 18\nITA Nos.1355, 2264/B/2024 etc.\n4.2\nUpon careful consideration of the case details and the appellant's\nsubmissions during the assessment proceedings, the AO proceeded to make\nseveral additions to the assessment order. These additions, pertinent to the\nrelevant AYs, were based on various issues that led to the filing of appeals

INMOBI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE3(1)(1), BANGALORE

section 142[1], either the Assessing Officer or the Prescribed Income- tax Authority, as the case may be, if, it is considered necessary or expedient to ensure that an assessee has not understated the income or has not computed excessive loss or has not underpaid tax in any manner, shall serve on the assessee a notice for attendance or production