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

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

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

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(1)(b) of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendments of Certain Provisions) Act 2020. We will therefore consider whether the bona fide belief of the assessee, that the employee contribution

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

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

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

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

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

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would than argue that the Explanation under section 143(1)(a) of the Act explains 'an incorrect claim' for the purpose of clause (ii) of section 143 (1) (a) of the Act, as meaning a claim based on an entry in a return of income. According to them, the date of return does

UBMC TRUST ASSOCIATION,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised in the additional ground

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

delay of 6 days is condoned in both the appeals. 5. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has filed an application for admission of additional ground that reads as under: “a. The notice issued under section 148 of the Act is bad in law. b. The learned assessing officer was not justified in issuing a notice under section

UBMC TRUST ASSOCIATION,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTIONS WARD-1, MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed on the legal issue raised in the additional ground

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

delay of 6 days is condoned in both the appeals. 5. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee has filed an application for admission of additional ground that reads as under: “a. The notice issued under section 148 of the Act is bad in law. b. The learned assessing officer was not justified in issuing a notice under section

AMRUTUR NINGAIAH GANGADHARAIAH,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(3), BANGALORE

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

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Amrutur Ningaiah Gangadharaiah, 151, 6Th Cross, The Income Tax Bapuji Layout, Officer, Attiguppe, Ward – 3(3)(3), Vijayanagar S.O., Bangalore. Bengaluru North, Vs. Bengaluru – 560 040. Pan: Adppg1594H Appellant Respondent

Section 69A of the Act which has no application in the facts and under the circumstances of the case. 5. The appellant was prevented from sufficient cause in presenting his case before the First Appellate authority, as the hearing notices issued by the said authority could not be accessed by your appellant due to the demise of the consultant

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

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

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

5,30,170/- only. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act vide order dated 29-12-2020 where claim of deduction under section 80P of the Act was disallowed for the reason that the return of income was not filed within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act i.e. 31st August

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

YASHODA PUTTARAJU JAYANTHKUMAR ,MYSORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1) , MYSORE

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

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

condoned the delay by exercising the powers conferred under section 249(3) of the Act, on the facts and circumstances of the case. c. The dismissal of the appeal on delay has resulted in collection of taxes on income which has not been earned by the appellant, thus, defeating the basic tenets of the taxation law, on the facts

SRI. M. NAGARAJA,MYSORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 2(1), MYSORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 1999-2000

139(4) of the Act. Further, no notice under Section 148 was issued then. Accordingly, the return filed was non est in the eye of law. Thus, the valid return originally filed was the one filed on 31.12.1999 wherein loss of Rs.5,18,874/- was declared. The AO concluded the assessment on 28.03.2002 under Section